a good way to get yourself labeled by someone who thinks in memes.
What an effective way to put it.
JakenVeina
joined 2 years ago
It did in my Update 6-8 playthrough, where I had a walkway similar to this. I was going for a "belts-only" playthrough, at the time, and I never got past Phase 6 with it. Figured I'd try again now in 1.0, while doing a truck/train-heavy playthrough with my wife. I'm actually a little bit sad that "belt-only" is so much easier now, with depots, but I really can't justify building a giant belt-fed hub anymore.
I AM using the walkway to run belts in cases where resources aren't adjacent to, or inside, the factory, like for my coal power plant.
Option 2 seems like the optimal idea, on paper, if Option 1 isn't feasible, but Option 3 doesn't really bother me, if there's trouble with Option 2's implementation. I don't consider privacy at an IP-tracking level really that much of a concern. This is a social media platform, my privacy is my anonymity.
It sounds like maybe Lemmy itself coupd use some enhancement with regard to how and when it decides to proxy, and what it does when proxying fails. If we can get a better experience by swapping to Option 3, until such enhancements are maybe made in the future, that sounds fair to me.
The issue last year was with someone, or many someones, uploading CSAM (child sexual abuse material, I.E. child porn). Like, SPAMMING it out to a bunch of Lemmy servers, which then federated it out across the whole network, in REALLY high volume. Obviously, no one wants to see that, but the legal concern is liability. For some servers, depending on where they're hosted, that means they can be held responsible for "hosting" the content, once it's been federated to them.
I'll wager "no" to your question. That sounds like something the Lemmy codebase itself would have to implement, not smething that's just configurable.
As I understand it (and assuming you know what asymmetric keys are)...
It's about using public/private key pairs and swapping them in wherever you would use a password. Except, passwords are things users can actually remember in their head, and are short enough to be typed in to a UI. Asymmetric keys are neither of these things, so trying to actually implement passkeys means solving this newly-created problem of "how the hell do users manage them" and the tech world seems to be collectively failing to realize that the benefit isn't worth the cost. That last bit is subjective opinion, of course, but I've yet to see any end-users actually be enthusiastic about passkeys.
If that's still flying over your head, there's a direct real-world corollary that you're probably already familiar with, but I haven't seen mentioned yet: Chip-enabled Credit Cards. Chip cards still use symmetric cryptography, instead of asymmetric, but the "proper" implementation of passkeys, in my mind, would be basically chip cards. The card keeps your public/private key pair on it, with embedded circuitry that allows it to do encryption with the private key, without ever having to expose it. Of course, the problem would be the same as the problem with chip cards in the US, the one that quite nearly killed the existence of them: everyone that wants to support or use passkeys would then need to have a passkey reader, that you plug into when you want to login somewhere. We could probably make a lot of headway on this by just using USB, but that would make passkey cards more complicated, more expensive, and more prone to being damaged over time. Plus, that doesn't really help people wanting to login to shit with their phones.
Automated certificate lifecycle management is going to be the norm for businesses moving forward.
This seems counter-intuitive to the goal of "improving internet security". Automation is a double-edged sword. Convenient, sure, but also an attack vector, one where malicious activity is less likely to be noticed, because actual people aren't involved in tbe process, anymore.
We've got ample evidence of this kinda thing with passwords: increasing complexity requirements and lifetime requirements improves security, only up to a point. Push it too far, and it actually ends up DECREASING security, because it encourages bad practices to get around the increased burden of implementation.
Yeah, I've done that before in plenty of places, and it's definitely better. Something still feels... missing, though.
I mean, I don't even particularly think it looks bad, not with the riser sections actually being enclosed, but how on earth do you get that to connect?
Please tell me those splitters are just cosmetic and don't actually work with lifts clipped that far in...
"What about that marshland off in the distance, to the east?"
"You must never go there."
Welcome!