Or that dude in the black hoodie in the corner who always seems to be camped at whatever cafe you and your cow orkers are using as your startup "office"?
Linux is not operated by NSA and is open for inspection. Can you say the same about VPN services in question?
It would be naive to think Huawei is isn’t influenced by CCP, specially if it is found, by presumably someone from PLA intelligence unit by your suggestion.
this is not a helpful argument. this isn't about not using Israeli OSS software but services that feed data into the surveillance grid of quasi rogue state.
Everyone is so preoccupied with losing their minds every time Trump trolls the media with some new nonsense on the socials that they're ignoring the completely insane things going on in the UK right now. Like arresting people for using naughty language online.
20 years ago this would have been daily outrage on Slashdot's YRO section but I get the feeling no one cares enough anymore.
I'm in awe at the number of people that will go to bat for things like artificial dyes in food, only because the policy is coming from the present administration. It's just common sense. We don't need to be ingesting this shit. It's cosmetic and not needed for nutrition. Why are you feeding your child Fruit Loops and not Cheerios?
I personally have known people who develop migraines after eating food with artificial dyes. We can sit here and snipe and play semantics and argue over pointless details but why bother? Just get rid of them all.
I want these decisions to be bases on scientific and medical data, not on gut feeling or unfounded personal belief. I have no issue with regulating specific dyes or additives in food, or groups of related chemicals.
And your anecdote is not scientific data. You cannot draw any conclusions from that.
Again with this, you are simply proving my point further. I don't need a panel of credentialed scientists to tell me if this stuff is okay or not. It's unnecessary to sustain life and provides no nutrition whatsoever. There is literally zero reason to add it to food. Your kid can eat white or chocolate icing on birthday cakes. Get rid of it. The end.
I know this feels cut and dry to you, but what you're kicking is a fundamental pillar of the industrial food system. Many food products emerge from processing a dull or unappetizing color. Food needs to last as long as possible and still look like food. It's tempting to say that food should all be made with love in home kitchens, but that's untenable for feeding 8 billion people.
My favorite example of this is orange juice. OJ is kept in long term storage to stretch a seasonal crop into year-round availability. What comes out is brown and flavorless! This brown mush is restored to something a person would drink with the addition of "flavor packs" made by the perfume industry. This has the added benefit of giving brands a consistent and repeatable flavor. Regulatory bodies in their wisdom allow this product to be called "100% juice".
You might say well get rid of that too. I'm not arguing this is the ideal food system. But it has to be said, this goes a lot deeper than the easy ones like frosting and fruit loops.
Calling it "the perfume industry" is a half truth. It's the flavoring industry, but it so happens that there's a lot of overlap between perfume and flavoring in terms of raw materials.
However, flavoring is a distinct profession. Besides that, very few novel compounds are allowed in food compared to fragrance. If any flavoring is synthetic in origin (which is not the same thing as novel, to be clear) then the product must be labeled as artificially flavored. If they call the product 100% juice and added flavoring is used, then that flavoring in turn has to have been sourced from the fruit.
In other words, they're using extracts from real oranges to reconstitute the flavor lost during pasteurization. They can further adjust which parts of the extract they use (called fractions and isolates) to dial in a particular flavor.
I appreciate the nuance! My intention was to show that there's a surprising amount of correction for flavor and taste necessary even for one-ingredient "natural" foods.
But there is a clear public health trade-off there, because far fewer people will drink O.J. if that work is required (vs. just pouring it out of a carton).
Food presentation has an effect on taste. This is why the dyes are used. Frankly, I wouldn't want to live in a world where the only food we're allowed to eat has to demonstrate that it's only made of ingredients necessary to sustain life and be nutritional.
When your mom eats something that is bad for her and her brain can tell it is bad for her, then if that experience is repeated a lot, then every time it encounters that thing or even thinks about that thing, her brain will tend to cause a defensive reaction, which itself is unpleasant and can affect your mom's behavior. None of this need be conscious or deliberate.
I don't think gp is trying to imply that she's explicitly making it up, just that the phenomena is in her head. To take an absurd example, it's probably safe to say that electromagentic sensitivity doesn't actually exist (ie. radio waves aren't actually causing people pain/distress), even if sufferers aren't lying to others about their experiences.
1. Because you'll feed them to your kids who do not make their own decisions, other than if they'll pay to remove cancers off their anus or die at home at 25.
2. Because a massive food industry would gladly lie about how unsafe their product is just like tobacco companies and they have far more money than you to befuddle the research.
>1. Because you'll feed them to your kids who do not make their own decisions, other than if they'll pay to remove cancers off their anus or die at home at 25.
How about we mandate physical activity for kids as well, given all the known harms of being inactive? Maybe refer kids to CPS if they're too fat too?
I meant overweight not dumb. Fat people (like my dad) don't drink a lot of water, they drink soda and sugar water. And every time I grocery shop at Walmart is pretty noticeable demographic of people buying crates of coke.
Because every time btrfs is mentioned, 5 more people come out of the woodwork saying that it irreparably lost all their data. Sorry but there's just too many stories for it to be mere coincidences.
Your statement is misleading. No one is using btrfs on servers. Debian and Ubuntu use ext4 by default. RHEL removed support for btrfs long ago, and it's not coming back:
> Red Hat will not be moving Btrfs to a fully supported feature. It was fully removed in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.
They do, but this is misleading due to a number of caveats
First one is that they don't use btrfs own RAID (aka btrfs-raid/volume management). They actually use hardware RAID so they don't experience any of the stability/data integrity issues people experience with btrfs-raid. Ontop of this, facebooks servers run in data centers that have 100% electricity uptime (these places have diesel generators for backup electricity)
Synology likewise offers btrfs on their NAS, but its underneath mdadm (software RAID)
The main benefit that Facebook gets from btrfs is transparent compression and snapshots and thats about it.
In my experience, btrfs just doesn't seem to be very resilient to hardware faults. Everything works great as long as you stay on the golden path, but when you fall off that path, it gets into a confused state and things start going very wrong and there is no way to recover (short of wiping the whole filesystem, because fsck doesn't fix the faults).
So yes, if you are Facebook, and put it on a rock-solid block layer, then it will probably work fine.
But outside of the world of hyperscalers, we don't have rock solid block layers. [1] Consumer drives occasionally do weird things and silently corrupt data. And on top of drives, nobody uses ECC memory and occasionally weird bit flips will corrupt data/metadata before it's even written to the disk.
At this point, I don't even trust btrfs on a single device. But the more disks you add to a btrfs array, the more likely you are to encounter a drive that's a little flaky.
And Btrfs's "best feature" really doesn't help it here, because it encourages users to throw a large number of smaller cheap/old spinning drives at it. Which is just going to increase the chance of btrfs encountering a flaky drive. The people who are willing to spend more money on a matched set of big drives are more likely to choose zfs.
The other paradox is that btrfs ends up in a weird spot where it's good enough to actually detect silent data corruption errors (unlike ext4/xfs and friends where you never find out your data was corrupted), but then it's metadata is complex and large enough that it seems to be extra vulnerable to those issues.
---------------
[1] No, mdadm doesn't count as a rock-solid block layer, it still depends on the drives to report a data error. If there is silent corruption, madam just forwards it. I did look into using a synology style btrfs on mdadm setup, but I searched and found more than a few stories from people who's synology filesystem borked itself.
In fact, you might actually be worse off with btrfs+mdadm, because now data integrity is done at a completely different layer to data redundancy, and they don't talk to each other.
In a scenario where they don't have to worry about data going poof because it's used to run stateless containers (taking advantage of CoW to reduce startup time etc)
And they almost always 'forget' to mention "that was in 2010" or "I was using the BTRFS feature marked 'do not use, unstable'".
It's really difficult to get a real feel for BTRFS when people deliberately omit critical information about their experiences. Certainly I haven't had any problems (unless you count the time it detected some bitrot on a hard drive and I had to restore some files from a backup - obviously this was in "single" mode).
Some of the most catastrophic ones were 3 years ago or earlier, but the latest kernel bug (point 5) was with 6.16.3, ~1 month ago. It did recover, but I already mentally prepared to a night of restores from backups...
> We had a few seconds of power loss the other day. Everything in the house, including a Windows machine using NTFS, came back to life without any issues. A Synology DS720+, however, became a useless brick, claiming to have suffered unrecoverable file system damage while the underlying two hard drives and two SSDs are in perfect condition. It’s two mirrored drives using the Btrfs file system
Synology does not use vanilla btrfs, they use a modified btrfs that runs over mdraid mirror, which somehow communicates with btrfs layer to supposedly fix errors, when they occur. It's not clear how far behind that fork is.
And also, I've read plenty enough about how hard it has been to maintain btrfs over the years. It's never really felt like the future.
Plus I needed zvols for various applications. I've used ZFS on BSD for even longer so when OpenZFS reached a decent level of maturity the choice between that and btrfs was obvious for me.
Not really data loss per se, but let me add my own story to the pile: just last week, I had a btrfs filesystem error out and go permanently read-only simply due to the disk becoming full. Hours of searching and no solution to be found, had to be reformatted.
I don't understand how btrfs is considered by some people to be stable enough for production use.
I know somebody is going to say otherwise, but BTRFS seems genuinely rock solid in single-disk setups. OpenSUSE defaults to it so I've been using it for years. No problems, it's not even something I worry about.
I've been running Btrfs on Fedora for a decade now (and it's been the default since 2020). I have basically never done any of those things and it's been fine. I've had to do more babysitting with my ZFS systems than I did my Btrfs ones.
This is DOA not because there is anything wrong with the app, but because iDevices make objectively poor baby monitors.
Babies sleep a lot. A LOT. Any halfway decent baby monitor needs the ability to see in the dark (IR illumination) which iDevices don't have, so unless it's relegated to monitoring play areas during the day, its usefulness is limited. That doesn't mean the software isn't well designed, the hardware is simply not fit for purpose.
I think video is not really required in a baby monitor. A nice to have, perhaps.
As I said in another thread, I used a audio-only baby monitor with 3 kids and didn't feel the need for video.
We just wanted to know if the baby started crying or woke up. And in our case, if it stopped breathing (we were afraid of SIDS - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIDS).
For a couple of years, we used a baby monitor on an iPad in the baby room. We never used IR illumination, instead we just waited until we got a notification on our phone, then watched the video. It was never utterly dark in the baby's room, but you can also remotely turn on the iPad LED light.
Thats really interesting, yeah I think that audio alone can be helpful. The notification though is actually really important now that you mention it I will see if I can add that in the next update!
The "replaceable" SSD in the M4 Mac Mini is proprietary and will not accept a standard M.2 module. This was a deliberate choice.
Assuming you locate an exact match, you need a second, working, Mac to provision it.
The entire process is user-hostile from start to finish yet the criticism is few (and I've even read praise of this practice on Mac fan sites).