Backing up entire VMs with all the configuration in case an update breaks something or just bricks your server is a smart idea aswell as running stuff in containers.
Also, 4GB per VM?
Besides sometimes you need to run software that is not avaliable on linux.
Not all server executables for video games are avaliable on linux for example.
There is a lot of use cases and just saying "you just need X" is somewhat of an ignorant statement.
No, I don't.
It's baffling for me living in Russia that modern western societies see everything wrong with dictatorship from a goverment but nothing or almost nothing wrong with dictatorship from big capital. E.g. you can't change your break pads unless you go to authorized repair (literal control over your private property and how you use it) and big platforms banning you from multiple public forums because you said a big no-no word (deplatforming and cross-platform restrictions are a thing)
You don’t have to look very hard to see an enormous number of people expressing discontent at the latter.
To speak to your examples, the right to repair, farmers vs John Deere, the exodus from X to Bluesky, the rise of alternative messaging platforms, the outright murder of CEOs on the street and the beatification of the primary suspect on social media…just to scratch the surface
These are all headlines straight from HN and the fact that you even know about them is the difference.
The fundamental difference is while we both lack any real power to change this, under an actual dictatorship people get jailed or worse for that expression.
Let’s touch base on this again when Dictatorship from big capital means Disney puts me in prison for dissent against the mouse and then offers me clemency if I go to the front lines in their next special military operation.
oh boy. you served GP a portion so generous they'll have plenty left over to take home and chew on for a while.
that last sentence rung like a bell & will reverberate until Larry Ellison's police drones follow you home because you blocked the drive-in of a Larry-owned fastfood franchise by way of a peaceful sit-in, protesting the mistreatment of human workers by robot overseers at Larry's Lasagna, nation-wide.
Does every single website that exists and is available in UK automatically provides services in UK? Isn't it just simpler to completely block every request from UK by default to "not provide services"?
Transactional services (I don't know if that's the right word), where you have a known user, is different from passively providing web pages that people can read and you don't track them or ask them to register for an account.
But I think that distinction was pretty moot when web 2.0 came along.
Imgur's entire purpose is clearly to host user generated content though, so you can't argue it's not "providing services".
Without user-generated content there is nothing to host. And in any case they long ago turned from an image hosting site into a social media site. There's reactions and commenting as a core part of the service now.
It baffles me how much political every aspect of life has become.
We can't just talk about things and hold genuine discussion. It always boils down to "us vs. them" standpoint.
Is genuine discussion typically like this? I'm not really getting a sense of back and forth. It sounds more like wanting to have one side of a conversation without really inviting a response or room for nuance.
I directly addressed your statement. "Trans people existing" is a vague statement that avoids talking about specifics. Discourse is toxic because of rhetorical tricks like this where you desperately try to avoid actual discussion.
Addressing the point. Do you agree or disagree that "trans people existing" is too vague to be meaningful? Alternatively, what exactly do you mean by "existing"?
I don't really know what to tell you, other than that it would help if you stopped being deliberately obtuse.
"Genuine discussion" includes responding to the topic of "trans people existing" by pointing out that "existing" is vague and needs further definition. That is genuine discussion, inviting you to clarify what you mean by "existing". I helpfully included a few other relevant bits of genuine discussion that welcome related tangents, but directly responded to your comment with genuine discussion directly about "trans people existing".
If you're going to no-true-genuine that conversation that's fine I guess, but I don't really understand the point of wasting time on simple rhetorical tricks that don't fool anyone.
I'm asking what you think a genuine response would be from someone who disagrees with you. So far, it appears that that doesn't exist. Is there any response you can construct that you feel would meet the criteria of being genuine? It's a very simple request.
> Do you agree or disagree that "trans people existing" is too vague to be meaningful? Alternatively, what exactly do you mean by "existing"?
A genuine response would be responding to that, not metacommentary while refusing to engage. A simple response of "By existing I mean ..." would be perfectly genuine.
I'm not sure how to make this any clearer. I've asked for an example from the beginning. An example contains both sides. If you wish to provide an example(and I hope you do) it will consist of two interlocutors with 10 to 20 individual statements. The example will demonstrate genuine debate. Do you understand the request?
Do you believe it is normal to be not sure how to make this any clearer. you're not going to engage in debate. you've asked for an example from the beginning. An example contains both sides. If me wish to provide an example( and you hope me do) it will consist of two interlocutors with 10 to 20 individual statements. The example will demonstrate genuine debate. Do you understand the request?
Just FYI, you are wasting your time with this user.
They've done this same tactic and question avoidance, perhaps quite literally hundreds of times on Hacker News. And I am frankly surprised people haven't caught on to this user and that they are even still allowed around here, given that this type of stuff is almost their sole contribution.
Its intentional, as well. I remember reading a comment where I think they just straight up admitted to doing this.
If you want a fun read, go back through their comment history and you'll find a multitude of users having the same problem as you are having with interactions with them.
It's the well known correlation between stupid opinions that can do no good and stupid people that cannot control themselves. We should worry about the bad cases when oppressors are in power and able to do significant harm and/or manipulative sociopaths using hate speech as one of many tools.
Exceptionally good. Sometimes I even think it's worth it.
Need a specific statement or a document - here you have it in PDF in 2 minutes in an android app with somewhat decent usability.
The only saving grace for us is incompetence. Tyrannies breed incopmetence in goverments since competent people are able to ask troubluing questions. At least I hope so.
The only problem is that any scammer who can pay $100-200 bribe can reset your password without you there and immediately get all these PDFs, then mess up your whole life.
Be more precise in your thinking. This is not about bomb threats, this is about punishing people that provide a line of communication.
It is not a new concept that defendants of freedom of speech often have to protect scoundrels too. The argument doesn't change, it always has the same pattern and principle. And yes, it is advisable to err on the side of freedom, there is enough literature here to expand on that point.
Additionally the agencies that would demand these information are prone to break the law itself. So this isn't even a discussion about doing something just or not. This is purely a discussion about how much power you want the executive to have. Or in case of Germany, the often misdirected and overworked judicative branch.
Criminals and fraudsters will abuse pretty much every technology they can get their hands on. As a consequence, every service operator needs to do their part to prevent fraud and abuse. If you offer a service anonymously and indiscriminately, your service will be overrun by crooks, and you'll end up serving criminals.
The fact that your service could be used to defend free speech does not absolve you from your duty of monitoring the use of your service. If you realise your service is used for exchanging illegal content and bomb threats, it's your duty to do something against that, or stop providing the service.
I think it has wrong perspective culling. Seems like the rays are not properly clipped in the view plane so it appears like the view has a "fish eye" effect.
