abff08f4813c

It’s definitely warranted as a random person.

See https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/262444/should-i-worry-about-compromised-firmware-when-reinstalling-an-os from an admin point of view and also https://www.binarydefense.com/resources/blog/running-malware-below-the-os-the-state-of-uefi-firmware-exploitation/ for a technical discussion on how such compromises work and can survive even a new OS reinstall.

Also note that things like your mac address could be leaked out and collected (as per https://theprepared.com/forum/thread/turn-off-your-wifi-when-you-dont-need-it-and-other-tips-on-how-to-prevent-hacking-and-tracking/ ) though Apple specifically has a private mac address spoofing feature to combat this. A lot of this collection is automated, as to cast as wide a net a possible.

So I dug into the source code a bit to see how it’s used. It turns out that IPFS might actually optional, as per the log line on https://github.com/hyprspace/hyprspace/blob/master/p2p/node.go#L213 (“Getting additional peers from IPFS API”)

The list of required bootstrap peers is hardcoded in the same file, but a few lines above, specifically at https://github.com/hyprspace/hyprspace/blob/master/p2p/node.go#L181

I say might be because - while the required bootstrap peers include a bunch of ones based on bootstrap.libp2p.io - there is a long list of hardcoded ip addresses and I don’t recognize any of them.

So those might be libp2p.io ip addresses, but they might also be IPFS ip addresses, or even belong to someone else altogether. (Edit: There are WHOIS tools online like https://lookup.icann.org/en that can be used to look these up and figure out who they belong to if you are really curious, but I can’t be bothered to do that right now.)

In any case, it looks like the way this works is that from a peer, libp2p tries to look up additional peers, and so on. So at most IPFS would be used as a way to get a listing, but once the desired peer is found, IPFS is cut out of the picture for that particular connection and NAT hole punching is used to establish a direct connection between peers instead (as per the linked wikipedia article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hole_punching_(networking )

I guess they back either other up. Like archive.is is able to take archives from archive.org but the saved page reflects the original URL and the original archiving time from the wayback machine (though it also notes the URL used from wayback itself plus the time they got archived it from wayback).

While this would almost certainly work, it would be nice if the root cause can be discovered and either fixed or worked around. Having to reinstall everytime one needs to free up disk space is … less than ideal.

To the surprise of absolutely no one.

This is actually very easy. You can copy the files from the container, even while it’s not running, onto your host system to edit there, and then copy them back afterwards.

See the top answer on https://stackoverflow.com/questions/22907231/how-to-copy-files-from-host-to-docker-container for step by step instructions on how to do this.

That’s exactly right.

Overall, the article just reflects the long standing situation - China’s never really been in control of or comfortable with North Korea. Rather, it was always just seen as the “least bad” option out of a bunch of seemingly bad ones…

Otherwise agreed. I guess the news part is that it’s done “in response to” what NK did recently - like this is an extra joint air drill that otherwise wouldn’t have taken place if NK hadn’t done anything.

That said, I recall reading the same kind of articles back in 2012, and in 2016, and 2018, and … so, agreed in full.

Agree, tech companies and the like should have known better. In fact, a few did mention it back then, e.g. https://tamouse.github.io/blog/politics/2019/10/02/why-is-the-io-domain-problematic.html

In fact, specifically for this reason, it’s forseeable that Mauritius does not retire the domain but keeps .io around, the same way that Russia keeps .su around (.ru being RUssia, and .su being the Soviet Union that hasn’t been around for quite a few decades now).

Note that the event was at 11:30 AM today

From https://www.coinspeaker.com/bitcoin-whitepaper-16-satoshi-nakamoto-hoax/ it explains,

Bitcoin Whitepaper Is 16 amid Fresh Satoshi Nakamoto Hoax
The identity of Bitcoin Founder Satoshi Nakamoto remains a mystery unsolved.
Updated Oct 31, 2024 at 12:59 PM

Edit:

Here’s another source with a few more details, https://cryptoslate.com/london-satoshi-reveal-unsurprisingly-fails-to-convince-anyone-of-his-identity-amid-fraud-charges/

London Satoshi reveal unsurprisingly fails to convince anyone of his identity amid fraud charges
Stephen Mollah’s attempt to prove he’s Satoshi Nakamoto falls flat in London.

That’s a very good point. It’s not a bad idea as it would indeed introduce significant friction. Even if eventually worked around completely, that would take time, during which there may well be a lot of persuasive complaints.

Only in the Spanish dub, which doesn’t count. You’ve made a solid argument that is beyond my ability to refute. Instead I’ll accept your position as the correct one and adopt your views as my own.

Eh, I mean they are a nuclear armed State. This is bad, but a crumbling nuclear power would probably detonate in a lot more ways than one, if you catch my meaning.

He doesn’t really want to do that though. Much more useful to Putin to stay in and keep trying to throw wrenches into the works and such.

Same reason why Russia tried to join NATO back in the 1950s

Agreed in full. I’m happy with the majority of the majority btw - that wasn’t an angle I had considered originally.

Actually, not exactly the same, as in 2022 Ukraine was generally recognized as a fully independent country when it was invaded. Whereas, generally countries do not get involved when another country deals with a matter within its own internal territory… thus Taiwan’s current situation is more precarious in some ways.

Being the remains of another government that originated from another area has, in a lot of ways, hurt the people of Taiwan.

I think that’s what makes the Russian Federation’s actions so bad. With the situation being as dire in Gaza as it is right now, every scrap of edible nutrition that is allowed to make it in counts.

The Russian Federation may not be a friend of Israel, but clearly they aren’t going to do any good for Palestine either.

TLDR to save you from a wall of text - we seem to agree on at least 99% and I’m not even sure what we’re disagreeing about anymore.

you might see that this was probably death by a million paper cuts.

Yes, I can easily see that being the case for that user.

Yeah this a wall of text. To be honest I can’t really spend my already limited time reading 15 paragraphs from someone who ignores relevant points I raise.

False premise? If you read it you’d have seen that I did not ignore those points but either agreed with or responded to each of them. Edit: So, while I certainly have no right to tell you what you should do with your time, perhaps it’s still possible that you can find a way to spend your “already limited time reading 15 paragraphs from someone [who acknowledges] relevant points” that you raised.

In this case, I addressed the ban reason given, and yet you try to argue more about it as though I didn’t.

So this is a bit odd. I disagreed with Monk on a lot, but I never felt that his responses to me ever became uncordial.

Between you and me, it sounds like we maybe agree on 95% or 99% of the points. And yet, somehow this convo seems to be the one taking a more unfriendly turn.

Anyways, I wasn’t arguing about the ban reason but attempting clarify that I was speaking against one particular thing w/o disagreeing with the rest.

If you cared about more than disputing me,

Sorry, I have a second wall of text you’d have to read. But in that I list out a lot of the different things I care about, and also the why.

Edit: I guess one might also ask why I spent so much time discussing this with you. Well, in fact, you’re exactly the type of person that the fediverse needs to be encouraging. Your script was useful, and I’m sure you’ll come up with many more greater and brilliant things as you spend more time on the fediverse. Basically, the fediverse needs you and more folks like you, so I was trying to turn around an engagement that might have started off the wrong foot around into a more positive one.

To address your criticism of my script, a couple days ago one of the mods told me explicitly they were using it as evidence when talking to admins about the issue.

And they saw it was evidence of a bot account or a shared account specifically? The numbers did show the guy submitting duplicate posts and such - which lead jordanlund to apply a temporary ban under rule 3 of that magazine as per https://lemm.ee/post/45466523

And I also apologize if I somehow implied that the script was not useful or worth it. While cautioning how the data should be interpreted, I generally support such efforts. I have no issue with your script.

Why would I look into my database and provide you with additional numbers or provide you info on how you could accomplish this on your own, if I was against this effort, against your script, or opposing you?

Two days later, dude is banned. So yeah, the remaining tides turned.

I think it’s more that additional context got revealed - as jordanlund pointed out, abusing DMs is a fast track to getting banned by the admins.

I think the script was a large part of it.

Agreed. Good data is important, and Lemmy in specific has a lack of good mod tools, so anything that can be done to address the gap is not only vitally important, but very necessary.

so the script I wrote for problem users like this will likely come in handy moving forward.

Absolutely.

I’m certain he’ll be back with alts,

On that note, I’d like to finish by explaining my own personal failings and why I might be a bit overly sensitive to someone getting banned without significant justification.

I first joined the fediverse after the API limits got announced on spez’s site. But at the same time, my main account was permanently banned. Do you know why?

I sure don’t. It came without warning and no one would response beyond the generic “look at our TOS to understand our rules”

I had alts that were unbanned so I could have continued, but I felt really unhappy with the lack of response. Ultimately I decided to delete all my alts and leave spez’s site for good.

Later, their legal team did contact me, but even after that, no reason for the ban was ever given.

If a user is banned, they should be told why. And the rules should be made clear upfront before they join. I agree with the reasons why Monk was both temp and perma banned. These rules were clearly visible up front. But there was never an explicit rule that folks who post on /m/politics should only post Dem posts. That should be added to the rulebar of that magazine if that’s going to be a rule going forward (and it’s a rule I’d have no trouble complying with, just to be clear).

I just want what’s fair.