dragonfly4933

If you were willing to spend money, why not just get it from RH directly.

The union negotiations could include in the contract that AI generated actors are not allowed when SAG is involved.

That doesn't completely stop AI, since they could try to use non union actors or no actors at all.

The issue with AI is that it is software, and software can scale very quickly. So large amounts of jobs could very quickly get automated without allowing workers and the economy to slowly adjust over time. Switchboard operator was just a single job in a single industry.

It will also lead to more consolidation of wealth since existing bussinesses stand to make great savings getting rid of people, and the AI itself is privately owned. Funny enough, this could also blow up in their face since that creates inventive for people to vote.

Note that v1 and v2 torrents use slightly different url fragments, so this won't work quite as easily as you think. It would be possible tell the difference because they use different hashes with different lengths, but most people probably won't know.

There are definitely differences, but usually they don't matter from a simple address and routing perspective.

For example, there is no ARP in IPv6. Instead another protocol is used called Neighbor Discovery Protocol, which actually is done through ICMPv6. Therefore, if you blindly block all ICMPv6, your network may break.

Once you have a grasp on v6, it is much better than v4 because even the smallest common v6 network size of /64 is many times larger than all the addresses in v4. Every device can have it's own global ip, so you no longer need nat at all. Everything can easily connect, assuming there is no firewall blocking it.

It can and will work, but it will not be optimal. You will be able to connect to other peers, but other peers will not be able to connect to you. This usually isn't a big deal, but it's not great in situations where there are not many peers, and you need every connection you can get.

DNS vc is used for any dns request, not just zone transfers. UDP can sometimes fail in some situations, in which case the client will fall back to TCP which will keep it working.

No, you should keep both udp and tcp port 53 open going out. blocking dns vc/tcp will result in dns being partially broken.

Why would you strip ipv6 if mullvad supports it. The reason people disable or block v6 are for 2 reasons, ignorance, and/or the vpn providor doesn't support ipv6. V4 and v6 can and usually do run at the same time (this is called dual stack), so if the vpn only touches the v4 side of things, v4 will be tunneled while v6 will be unaffected.

Also, the firewall doesn't matter if you use a torrent client that can just bind to the wg interface (assuming there is no nat being performed from the wg interface to the physical interface). The client will take one or all of the ips on the interface, which will make it impossible to leak IP directly assuming your switch or router doesn't also have an ip in the same subnet as your wg interface ip.

I don't know UFW, but if you run iptables-save or nft list ruleset i can take a look to see if it is sane.

But what i can tell is that it might work. You appear to be only allowing public traffic to wg. It should be noted that this setup will likely fail at some point because you are hard coding the IP. It should fail safe, but the public internet will not work.

Bottles is pretty good. It's available on flathub.

It's basically how widevine works. The hardware "secure" boots the OS, and the OS only loads signed code. And there is a chain of custody all the way to the hardware, so the software that communicates with the server can attest that it is the same as what they expect.

The simple explanation is that they wish to further erode property ownership by the proletariat by locking down operating systems such that they can't do as their owners wish, but only what the corporation wants.

The likely retaliation RH/IBM would take is simply banning the account, not starting a lawsuit immediately. However, rights holders may attempt sue before or after such an event, but likely after.

RH thinks they have the right to distribute code in this manner, and they can keep doing so until challenged in court. You can do actions in general without asking the court every time, I think the same applies here as well.

I personally think it is a violation in a strict sense, but at the same time I don't think it really matters too much realistically. Stream is upstream RHEL, and they are very similar, and at some points in time, should be identical. It's also not clear what you get exactly by suing RH/IBM. The likely case is that they settle or rule to have that section removed from the ToS.

Maybe, but in practice nothing happens. Microsoft has had numerous issues reported to them before, years ago, and the issue reported to them was never fixed or taken seriously. Then years later, the issue is sometimes rediscovered and they find the report from years earlier, and nothing happens.

Until legislation gets passed to force companies to take liability of their software, nothing will change.