I have seen the Fairphones around, my personal experience isn't that great. The Phones given they're Price class are usually just that much worse which is huge turndown, but I could be wrong nowadays my experience is from the Fairphone 3. Also, there were supply Issues with replacement parts when my Sister owned one.loebas wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2025 2:52 pm i want to go for a Fairphone 5 since these are highly repairable
I have seen the Fairphones around, my personal experience isn't that great. The Phones given they're Price class are usually just that much worse which is huge turndown, but I could be wrong nowadays my experience is from the Fairphone 3. Also, there were supply Issues with replacement parts when my Sister owned one.loebas wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2025 2:52 pm i want to go for a Fairphone 5 since these are highly repairable
Attachments
Attachments
Attachments
Attachments
I just installed Mint on an 10+ year old laptop of mine. Having fun with it so far even if the computer's slightly laggy from how old it is.rejectconvenience wrote: Sun Jul 28, 2024 9:28 am That's not true, I use pop_os, but what's your favorite distro?![]()
I just installed Mint on an 10+ year old laptop of mine. Having fun with it so far even if the computer's slightly laggy from how old it is.rejectconvenience wrote: Sun Jul 28, 2024 9:28 am That's not true, I use pop_os, but what's your favorite distro?![]()
Attachments
Attachments
This is also not the case with the Proof or Work test that Anubis Presents, as Computers are the only ones that can preform the Calculations in a timely manner.Mæstro wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 10:21 am ‘a program that protects websites against bots by generating and grading tests that humans can pass but current computer programs cannot.’
This is also not the case with the Proof or Work test that Anubis Presents, as Computers are the only ones that can preform the Calculations in a timely manner.Mæstro wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 10:21 am ‘a program that protects websites against bots by generating and grading tests that humans can pass but current computer programs cannot.’
I think this is false, for Anubis itself and its official documentation state otherwise. Anubis’ official instance introduces itself to users as ‘making sure you’re not a bot’, as shown in the attached screenshot. The readme describes Anubis as a firewall and an alternative to Cloudflare, an unambiguous captcha (where ticking a box is the challenge), which is why I had brought it up in the first place. The developer’s explanation states that Anubis is intended to block scrapers, although it does so by testing features.Crazyroostereye wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 11:23 am Anubis doesn't [determine if a Connection is from a Human or a Bot], nor it tries to determine if a Connection is Human or Bot.
This is literally true, and when I spoke of vagueness in my post, this is what I had in mind. Anubis says on the official instance if cookies are blocked that it ‘requires cookies [for] making sure you are a valid client’. ‘Client’ can refer just as well to the end user himself or the computer which he uses to access the server. The user, not the computer, is reading the message, but Anubis tests the computer itself. None of the definitions I have found are pedantic enough to bother splitting this hair, so neither do I.]Computers are the only ones that can preform the Calculations in a timely manner.
It is true, from the the developer’s comments, that Anubis uses the same technology, that also in Hashcash, which is used (among other things) for punishing spambots, but from the above documentation, Anubis infers from the results whether to deny bot networks access. The readme also mentions that legitimate web crawlers will fail to index sites wielding Anubis, which would not happen if it only tolled the user’s processor like some antispam measures.The way Anubis works is by making Hard to Compute calculation that the Computer has to preform, which its intent is to increase the Computing bill of Bot Networks that access the Website frequently.
Attachments
I think this is false, for Anubis itself and its official documentation state otherwise. Anubis’ official instance introduces itself to users as ‘making sure you’re not a bot’, as shown in the attached screenshot. The readme describes Anubis as a firewall and an alternative to Cloudflare, an unambiguous captcha (where ticking a box is the challenge), which is why I had brought it up in the first place. The developer’s explanation states that Anubis is intended to block scrapers, although it does so by testing features.Crazyroostereye wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 11:23 am Anubis doesn't [determine if a Connection is from a Human or a Bot], nor it tries to determine if a Connection is Human or Bot.
This is literally true, and when I spoke of vagueness in my post, this is what I had in mind. Anubis says on the official instance if cookies are blocked that it ‘requires cookies [for] making sure you are a valid client’. ‘Client’ can refer just as well to the end user himself or the computer which he uses to access the server. The user, not the computer, is reading the message, but Anubis tests the computer itself. None of the definitions I have found are pedantic enough to bother splitting this hair, so neither do I.]Computers are the only ones that can preform the Calculations in a timely manner.
It is true, from the the developer’s comments, that Anubis uses the same technology, that also in Hashcash, which is used (among other things) for punishing spambots, but from the above documentation, Anubis infers from the results whether to deny bot networks access. The readme also mentions that legitimate web crawlers will fail to index sites wielding Anubis, which would not happen if it only tolled the user’s processor like some antispam measures.The way Anubis works is by making Hard to Compute calculation that the Computer has to preform, which its intent is to increase the Computing bill of Bot Networks that access the Website frequently.
Attachments
My disputes often sprout from philosophical themes. For example, having been the only idealist in a room full of materialists has sometimes indirectly led to conflict, naturally about indirectly related matters, notably when they presume materialist principles in other statements which I then have reason to reject. My reasons are a priori and a casual conversation cannot overturn them. With most people, I cannot expect even meaningfully to discuss the underlying cleft, although I know full well it is there. (If I want to weigh the merits of rival ontologies, I would rather read an academic philosopher than some random layman with an internet connexion.) The discussion must therefore remain superficial, which I think engenders much of the problem I face, although I think it would be at least as bad if we proceeded to quarrel over metaphysics or whatever else.zonk wrote: Thu Jun 12, 2025 2:12 pm …don't be so sure that the other person is wrong. You can be mistaken, too… everyone in the conversation approaches the truth, even if that means you're the one who's mistaken… you should be open to the possibility that they have good reasons for their belief.
Oddly enough, this is what I tended to do until this year: seeking to understand them on their own terms. This approach went far worse for everybody involved.I think the best way to respond to people with whom you disagree is by asking honest and genuine questions. Probe their knowledge by trying to get to the bottom of why they believe what they said. Your goal should be to understand the other person's perspective out of genuine curiosity…
I recognise, and have indeed read in full, the book you have most likely got in mind. A street epistemologist is as insufferable as his evangelical equivalent, the presuppositionalist. Both promote only the kind of religious intolerance that I wish to flee. I do not want to be a gadfly.This practice is called street epistemology, and it usually comes up around the topic of religion, but I have applied it with respect to politics as well.
I never hope to gain anything. The profit motive itself is absent in me. Words like productive and useful ring in my ear like mean and base. I think I could ignore things if only I knew how. This social skill, for somebody for whom this is not obvious or easy, is perhaps complex like learning to play an instrument, but I believe it can be taught.…ask yourself what you hope to gain by arguing with someone on the internet. Do a simple cost/benefit analysis to decide if it's worth your time… I think the best you can do is try to at least make it as productive as possible.
Moderators where I belong have also told me they will quench such sparking conversations before they burst into flame, but admit they cannot always be present. I also wish to avoid the threat of charges of hypocrisy if somebody else says something disagreeable. This remedy is incomplete, and I am open to further suggestions on how to prevent online strife.]]>I wrote:Volatile: please do not reply if we disagree about something, to avoid quarrels.
My disputes often sprout from philosophical themes. For example, having been the only idealist in a room full of materialists has sometimes indirectly led to conflict, naturally about indirectly related matters, notably when they presume materialist principles in other statements which I then have reason to reject. My reasons are a priori and a casual conversation cannot overturn them. With most people, I cannot expect even meaningfully to discuss the underlying cleft, although I know full well it is there. (If I want to weigh the merits of rival ontologies, I would rather read an academic philosopher than some random layman with an internet connexion.) The discussion must therefore remain superficial, which I think engenders much of the problem I face, although I think it would be at least as bad if we proceeded to quarrel over metaphysics or whatever else.zonk wrote: Thu Jun 12, 2025 2:12 pm …don't be so sure that the other person is wrong. You can be mistaken, too… everyone in the conversation approaches the truth, even if that means you're the one who's mistaken… you should be open to the possibility that they have good reasons for their belief.
Oddly enough, this is what I tended to do until this year: seeking to understand them on their own terms. This approach went far worse for everybody involved.I think the best way to respond to people with whom you disagree is by asking honest and genuine questions. Probe their knowledge by trying to get to the bottom of why they believe what they said. Your goal should be to understand the other person's perspective out of genuine curiosity…
I recognise, and have indeed read in full, the book you have most likely got in mind. A street epistemologist is as insufferable as his evangelical equivalent, the presuppositionalist. Both promote only the kind of religious intolerance that I wish to flee. I do not want to be a gadfly.This practice is called street epistemology, and it usually comes up around the topic of religion, but I have applied it with respect to politics as well.
I never hope to gain anything. The profit motive itself is absent in me. Words like productive and useful ring in my ear like mean and base. I think I could ignore things if only I knew how. This social skill, for somebody for whom this is not obvious or easy, is perhaps complex like learning to play an instrument, but I believe it can be taught.…ask yourself what you hope to gain by arguing with someone on the internet. Do a simple cost/benefit analysis to decide if it's worth your time… I think the best you can do is try to at least make it as productive as possible.
Moderators where I belong have also told me they will quench such sparking conversations before they burst into flame, but admit they cannot always be present. I also wish to avoid the threat of charges of hypocrisy if somebody else says something disagreeable. This remedy is incomplete, and I am open to further suggestions on how to prevent online strife.]]>I wrote:Volatile: please do not reply if we disagree about something, to avoid quarrels.
Attachments
Attachments
C418 recently made the music for the game Wanderstop, https://youtu.be/zKBgeJziLsURain wrote: Fri May 30, 2025 6:18 pm The Minecraft soundtracks, oddly enough. I was never a huge Minecraft player or anything, I was initially into Boards of Canada and eventually discovered C418 since they both have a similar ambient-ish vibe. Volume Beta is still one of my favorite albums to this day.
C418 recently made the music for the game Wanderstop, https://youtu.be/zKBgeJziLsURain wrote: Fri May 30, 2025 6:18 pm The Minecraft soundtracks, oddly enough. I was never a huge Minecraft player or anything, I was initially into Boards of Canada and eventually discovered C418 since they both have a similar ambient-ish vibe. Volume Beta is still one of my favorite albums to this day.
Attachments
Attachments
Attachments
Attachments
What's your usecase? Just being able to stream things to friends? Tabletop gaming?Rain wrote: Sat May 31, 2025 6:31 pm Discord, specifically for low-latency live streaming. I still haven't found any good alternatives that let me stream my desktop audio and video in real time on Linux.
What's your usecase? Just being able to stream things to friends? Tabletop gaming?Rain wrote: Sat May 31, 2025 6:31 pm Discord, specifically for low-latency live streaming. I still haven't found any good alternatives that let me stream my desktop audio and video in real time on Linux.
Mostly streaming video games with friends. We usually talk over Signal but the screen share was choppy and the audio didn't seem to come through, same thing with other video conferencing software we tried (Jitsi, Matrix). We also considered PeerTube for general live streaming but the latency isn't ideal for games where you need to react quickly.Mark wrote: Sat May 31, 2025 6:47 pmWhat's your usecase? Just being able to stream things to friends? Tabletop gaming?Rain wrote: Sat May 31, 2025 6:31 pm Discord, specifically for low-latency live streaming. I still haven't found any good alternatives that let me stream my desktop audio and video in real time on Linux.
Mostly streaming video games with friends. We usually talk over Signal but the screen share was choppy and the audio didn't seem to come through, same thing with other video conferencing software we tried (Jitsi, Matrix). We also considered PeerTube for general live streaming but the latency isn't ideal for games where you need to react quickly.Mark wrote: Sat May 31, 2025 6:47 pmWhat's your usecase? Just being able to stream things to friends? Tabletop gaming?Rain wrote: Sat May 31, 2025 6:31 pm Discord, specifically for low-latency live streaming. I still haven't found any good alternatives that let me stream my desktop audio and video in real time on Linux.
Yeah one of the problems with streaming is that there's a lot of secret sauces that go into it, from encoding/decoding, choosing the right bitrates, and often in the case of Discord and other big names like Twitch in particular, you'll have transcoding which takes the stream and re-encodes it into more efficient and low-latency stream options (that's why you can choose what quality to watch when you watch a stream). When you go direct from A to C without taking a stop in the middle, the software basically has to trust that you are able to send that signal fast enough and without performance issues, and that the person receiving it can also handle receiving what you're sending. Then, if you're sending that to more than one person, you're having to take quite a performance hit to transmit that data that many times over, which is also what having infrastructure in the middle handles. It's also why streaming is actually stupid expensive (Twitch which is owned by Amazon, uses Amazon infrastructure like IVS to do it. You can actually see what it would cost if you did that yourself https://ivs.rocks/calculator ). All of that said, you have to find the right alternative that fits your needs, and that is pretty hard to do, particularly for free. Discord is an odd one out because it lets you do it for free. There might be some lower-cost options that might work but most lower-cost options aren't made for low-latency/high bit-rate that gaming typically needs to look "good" (Zoom for example probably won't do great).Rain wrote: Sun Jun 01, 2025 12:10 amMostly streaming video games with friends. We usually talk over Signal but the screen share was choppy and the audio didn't seem to come through, same thing with other video conferencing software we tried (Jitsi, Matrix). We also considered PeerTube for general live streaming but the latency isn't ideal for games where you need to react quickly.Mark wrote: Sat May 31, 2025 6:47 pm
What's your usecase? Just being able to stream things to friends? Tabletop gaming?
Yeah one of the problems with streaming is that there's a lot of secret sauces that go into it, from encoding/decoding, choosing the right bitrates, and often in the case of Discord and other big names like Twitch in particular, you'll have transcoding which takes the stream and re-encodes it into more efficient and low-latency stream options (that's why you can choose what quality to watch when you watch a stream). When you go direct from A to C without taking a stop in the middle, the software basically has to trust that you are able to send that signal fast enough and without performance issues, and that the person receiving it can also handle receiving what you're sending. Then, if you're sending that to more than one person, you're having to take quite a performance hit to transmit that data that many times over, which is also what having infrastructure in the middle handles. It's also why streaming is actually stupid expensive (Twitch which is owned by Amazon, uses Amazon infrastructure like IVS to do it. You can actually see what it would cost if you did that yourself https://ivs.rocks/calculator ). All of that said, you have to find the right alternative that fits your needs, and that is pretty hard to do, particularly for free. Discord is an odd one out because it lets you do it for free. There might be some lower-cost options that might work but most lower-cost options aren't made for low-latency/high bit-rate that gaming typically needs to look "good" (Zoom for example probably won't do great).Rain wrote: Sun Jun 01, 2025 12:10 amMostly streaming video games with friends. We usually talk over Signal but the screen share was choppy and the audio didn't seem to come through, same thing with other video conferencing software we tried (Jitsi, Matrix). We also considered PeerTube for general live streaming but the latency isn't ideal for games where you need to react quickly.Mark wrote: Sat May 31, 2025 6:47 pm
What's your usecase? Just being able to stream things to friends? Tabletop gaming?