aircraft for example

due to DO-178C requirements, Linux can’t be used there… yet.

The server isn’t exposed to the internet. It’s a local IMAP server.

if it is processing emails that originate from the internet, it is exposed to the internet

security updates are for cowards, amirite? 😂

seriously though, Debian 7 stopped receiving security updates a couple of years prior to the last time you rebooted, and there have been a lot of exploitable vulnerabilities fixed between then and now. do your family a favor and replace that mailserver!

From the 2006 modification times, i wonder: did you actually start off with a 3.1 (sarge) install and upgrade it to 7 (wheezy) and then stopped upgrading at some point? if so, personally i would be tempted to try continuing to upgrade it all the way to bookworm, just to marvel at debian stable’s stability… but only after moving its services to a fresh system :)

I asked this question the other day if I could somehow input my handwritten notes into programs like Trilium (or logseq whatever) and memos. OCR/HCR seems to far behind still so I am unsure.

I just left this comment on your post.

Via the pine64 blog update about their e-ink tablet TIL about inkput (using OnlineHTR) which appears to be a step in the right direction.

Similar to this: https://github.com/alibahmanyar/breaklist

Relatedly, there was a company was selling a cloud(🤡)-based product called “Little Printer” from 2012 to 2014; after their backend predictably shut down, some fans of it recreated it as https://tinyprinter.club/ and later https://nordprojects.co/projects/littleprinters/

somehow input my handwritten notes

I’ve heard the reMarkable e-ink tablet’s cloud service has good-enough-to-be-usable handwriting recognition, but sadly I haven’t heard of anything free/libre and/or offline that is.

Brendan Howell’s The Screenless Office is “a system for working with media and networks without using a pixel-based display. It is an artistic operating system.”

You can “read and navigate news, web sites and social media entirely with the use of various printers for output and a barcode scanner for input”.

“Given they were trained on our data, it makes sense that it should be public commons – that way we all benefit from the processing of our data”

I wonder how many people besides the author of this article are upset solely about the profit-from-copyright-infringement aspect of automated plagiarism and bullshit generation, and thus would be satisfied by the models being made more widely available.

The inherent plagiarism aspect of LLMs seems far more offensive to me than the copyright infringement, but both of those problems pale in comparison to the effects on humanity of masses of people relying on bullshit generators with outputs that are convincingly-plausible-yet-totally-wrong (and/or subtly wrong) far more often than anyone notices.

I liked the author’s earlier very-unlikely-to-be-met-demand activism last year better:

I just sent @OpenAI a cease and desist demanding they delete their GPT 3.5 and GPT 4 models in their entirety and remove all of my personal data from their training data sets before re-training in order to prevent #ChatGPT telling people I am dead.

…which at least yielded the amusingly misleading headline OpenAI ordered to delete ChatGPT over false death claims (it’s technically true - a court didn’t order it, but a guy who goes by the name “That One Privacy Guy” while blogging on linkedin did).

I looked at that, and thought “ha, that is a funny and obviously fake screenshot of a headline, created to ridicule photomatt for being petty in his fight with his company’s biggest competitor”.

Then, after closing this tab I did a double take and thought: maybe it’s actually real?

And, it turns out, yeah, he really actually did that (after a court injunction required them to remove the checkbox which required users to pledge that they were “not affiliated with WP Engine in any way, financially or otherwise”):

😂

weird, i wonder why. i just checked on an ubuntu 24.04 system to confirm it is there (and it is).

i guess your computer’s power button might not be supported (out of the box, at least) by Linux’s acpi implementation :(

same here; other articles there load fine but this one gives me HTTP 500 with content-length 0.

(the empty body tag in your screenshot is generated by firefox while rendering the zero-length response from the server, btw.)

(disclaimer: this information might be years out of date but i think it is still accurate?)

SSH doesn’t have a null cipher, and if it did, using it still wouldn’t make an SSH tunnel as fast as a TCP connection because SSH has its own windowing mechanism which is actually what is slowing you down. Doing the cryptography at line speed should not be a problem on a modern CPU.

Even though SSH tunnels on your LAN are probably faster than your internet connection (albeit slower than LAN TCP connections), SSH’s windowing overhead will also make for slower internet connections (vs rsync or something else over TCP) due to more latency exacerbating the problem. (Whenever the window is full, it is sitting there not transmitting anything…)

So, to answer OP’s question:

• if you want to rsync over SSH, you usually don’t need a daemon (or to specify --rsh=ssh as that is the default).
• if you the reason you want to use the rsync daemon is performance, then you don’t want to use SSH. you’ll need to open a port for it.
• besides performance, there are also some rsync features which are only available in “daemon mode”. if you want to use those, you have at least 3 options:
  • open a port for your rsync daemon, and don’t use SSH (bonus: you also get the performance benefit. downside, no encryption.)
  • setup an SSH tunnel and tell the rsync client it is connecting to a daemon on localhost
  • look at man rsync and read the section referred to by this:

    • The remote-shell transport is used whenever the source or destination path contains a single colon (:) separator after a host specification. Contacting an rsync daemon directly happens when the source or destination path contains a double colon (::) separator after a host specification, OR when an rsync:// URL is specified (see also the USING RSYNC-DAEMON FEATURES VIA A REMOTE-SHELL CONNECTION section for an exception to this latter rule).

HTH.

Hikarunix

big oof.

We can conclude: that photo isn’t AI-generated. You can’t get an AI system to generate photos of an existing location; it’s just not possible given the current state of the art.

the author of this substack is woefully misinformed about the state of technology 🤦

it has, in fact, been possible for several years already for anyone to quickly generate convincing images (not to mention videos) of fictional scenes in real locations with very little effort.

The photograph—which appeared on the Associated Press feed, I think—was simply taken from a higher vantage point.

Wow, it keeps getting worse. They’re going full CSI on this photo, drawing a circle around a building on google street view where they think the photographer might have been, but they aren’t even going to bother to try to confirm their vague memory of having seen AP publishing it? wtf?

Fwiw, I also thought the image looked a little neural network-y (something about the slightly less-straight-than-they-used-to-be lines of some of the vehicles) so i spent a few seconds doing a reverse image search and found this snopes page from which i am convinced that that particular pileup of cars really did happen as it was also photographed by multiple other people.

404 Media neglected to link to her website, which is https://ada-ada-ada.art/

Funny that blog calls it a “failed attempt at a backdoor” while neglecting to mention that the grsec post (which it does link to and acknowledges is the source of the story) had been updated months prior to explicitly refute that characterization:

5/22/2020 Update: This kind of update should not have been necessary, but due to irresponsible journalists and the nature of social media, it is important to make some things perfectly clear:

Nowhere did we claim this was anything more than a trivially exploitable vulnerability. It is not a backdoor or an attempted backdoor, the term does not appear elsewhere in this blog at all; any suggestion of the sort was fabricated by irresponsible journalists who did not contact us and do not speak for us.

There is no chance this code would have passed review and be merged. No one can push or force code upstream.

This code is not characteristic of the quality of other code contributed upstream by Huawei. Contrary to baseless assertions from some journalists, this is not Huawei’s first attempt at contributing to the kernel, in fact they’ve been a frequent contributor for some time.

Wasn’t Huawei trying to put a Backdoor into linux?

as far as i know, that has not happened.

what makes you think it did?