This is extremely work in progress and to my knowledge only currently available for basic certificates not wildcard ones. I assume since @doomsdayrs@lemmy.ml is dealing with dns stuff, she needs a wildcard cert.
Might be good for the future tho when (if) that is added.

I once soldered a usb wire into the terminals where the battery of my moto g4 used to be, and it kept crashing on boot. So I added a large capacitor right across the terminals, and even with that and being at 5V (on a 5 amp supply), some apps still overloaded it and got it to crash.

Would love if there was some package that just attached like a battery with a usb wire coming out the bottom, that could supply any spikes if the usb provided enough average power.

You put an account id/token into dns, which allows machines to renew the cert under that account with just the account credentials (key).
So after setting it up, the token stays the same forever and you don’t need to touch dns.

Such tokens are already used by acme clients when they renew their certs. It’s also how acme providers can detect expiring certificates for example.

I find it a bit weird, since the whole deal of shortening lifetimes was in part to protect against stolen certificates, and now by stealing the account key you are again stealing the ability to indefinitely make certificates.

At least you can “revoke” such access by switching the account and updating the dns record authorizing it.

even a very similar logo …

If anything truly local and zero knowledge was allowed, there would be someone sharing their access eu-wide and everyone could install that and be done with it. One person authenticating millions.

Just due to that every system proposed has at minimum a central authority that does rate limiting.

Oh true. And some gap between the disks? Or is it sufficient as is?

Hows the hdd cooling situation?

Sorry for wrongly accusing you then

You ran a classifier on a stranger’s paragraphs, compared the score to your own, and diagnosed a mental illness from sentence rhythm.

I felt something might be off, and asked. Got a hostile and weird response, and only then ran a classifier to have something that’s not just my own judgement. Of course this isn’t perfect.
I also don’t claim you have ai psychosis, I explained why I care if you sound like ai or use ai.

If writing in full sentences …

It was a few specific phrases and the style of headers. “The “off-topic” defence has a hole in it.”, “What happened when this was reported”, “Three things to take from that” (from xda). Things like that.

I wrote his best defence for him. You didn’t read it, but you did run a detector on it.

I checked the last paragraphs of your post here on lemmy (which I read in entirety), nothing more. I didn’t read the xda post when I wasn’t sure this was worth spending more time on.
I have now read it, I don’t see you mention the potential of a private agreement there either.

Now the two questions you asked as if they were checkmate, both answered in the document before you showed up.

Not sure which document you mean. But I asked to make sure you know what you are talking about (and because I was missing that info), and your answer makes sense, so that’s fine. That’s why I asked.
󠀀
󠀀
Anyway, so the plus “fork” could have a private agreement, and telegram would fully legally be allowed to do that since they own all contributions? And at the same time contributers can’t sue, only telegram can, if the “fork” doesn’t have an agreement? Meaning either way Telegram lets this happen?

As for downstream by itself, I don’t see any legal problem. If the “fork” dev wants to no longer publish code and only publishes 3 documents of text, that’s fully in their right. You can keep copies of the old code, but if there are no upstream requirements then nothing in gpl forces code to stay online. As code owner you can always make a closed fork.
(That’s why software on gpl but with CLAs that sign over contributor’s rights, or software that doesn’t accept contributions, is fake foss. But that’s a different topic)

I’d then say Telegram have a free “foss” branch and a paid closed branch based on it, which is a common business model for “foss” software companies.
With the difference that Telegram obfuscates that by making the monetized project publicly separate, and would now potentially be hiding that fact by censoring discussion?

deleted by creator

Not irrelevant at all. For one it’s something you should declare at a minimum, not doing so seems dishonest to me, especially on a foss community.

I checked and it’s not just my impression, the “baseline ai detector” pangram also flags you reliably in all parts I tried for example (even more than me, I only get the impression from some paragraphs). So I would like to know why you use very ai-like phrases and formatting if this isn’ tai.

Also, sounding like ai is a valid explanation for a lot of the treatment you described. You call yourself “opensource-compliance-gh”, and revive a 6 year old github issue, by posting a lengthy text about legal stuff and morals that sounds like ai.

And, if this is not ai, then sounding like it is a massive sign of ai psychosis, which would mean any facts you reference are suspect by default. “AI voice” is a sign of untrustworthiness, and for good reason.

As for the actual post, have you actually made sure you understand the legal situation? Have you tried finding out from the devs if there is a special licensing going on? Have you checked for CLAs (do you even know what that is)?

PS: “Irrelevant. Stick to the topic.” is how you talk to an ai, not a person. You don’t command prople like that, it’s at best extremely unfriendly.

Did you write this using ai?

A second nas. Both my nas’ have raid. They also have revisions, and one is off except for when running backups.
A lot of stuff has a third copy on the server I run stuff on.
I may some day take your approach and make the backup nas smaller, then exclude media I have in torrents. Though restoring 10 TB over i2p may take a literal year in case of failure.

PS: the backup raid is btrfs raid :)

Yeah, it’s actually a great setup. I’d hope to achieve the same one day by moving all my media to torrents/making torrents, but my personal data alone is still hundreds of GB. I have no idea how you did it.
My music is 3 of GB, and that is just my core playlists often in bad (youtube) bitrate. 13GB for music videos.
My jellyfin db itself is like a GB.
I still have to make lower-res versions of my scanned documents, but I doubt that’ll ever leave the GB, or even tens of GBs (yay bureaucracy).

There’s people that have 200TB Nas’, and people talking about the 10€/month/5TB Hetzner tier. And then there’s op backing up 1GB across 5 cloud provider’s free tiers.

What you got in there? Your light novel library?

There used to be a time where unlocking xiaomi phones took nothing but waiting 24 hours.

When I got one, that was up to 7 days, and you had to put in a sim with mobile data then make a xiaomi account (so they can log the sim any network details for fingerprinting). Then use a barely working windows only tool to get the codes, and if you requested them too early start over.

Now, last I hear, it’s once per year per sim, with a wait of a month, and many regions (like the us iirc) are completely forbidden.

In this case it’s likely google is checking if the EU will say anything, or other regulators, or regular users. This already adds a big obstacle devs have to get users over.
But they will definitely expand this.

Right now you can still install a dummy over it via adb. Just wait for when this is rolled out in new phones and adb can only disable it for a day anymore.
And then wait for them blocking unlocking of phones, and disabling adb without yourself the user verifying with google.

I found an activity “System Component Update Activity” (com.google.android.finsky.systemcomponentupdateui.common.SystemComponentUpdateActivity) a few years ago.

That seems to have stopped all the random changes gsm made to my phone all the time, and I also haven’t gotten this app or the scanner one from last year.
You could install App Manager from fdroid and launch that using adb perms I think.

No, neither would user uninstall of this was a system app, or also installed for different users.
You need to fully clear the apk and its signatire from the device, a full uninstall is the minimum.

With root you can mod out the signature check and update it to a different app, even if it is a system app.
If it is not (which is gonna be the case for a while), then adb uninstall should work.

They distance negative stuff and liabilities. They don’t destroy books, they contract out to a company that scans and destroys them and transfers them the data.

You could uninstall it if you have it currently, then install a dummy apk with the same id that is signed using your own keys. That should stop google services from installing the real verification app.
That’s how I’ve seen past apps be disabled that google kept silently installing.

https://github.com/daboynb/developer-verifier-placeholder/releases
This looks like such a dummy, from a dev who seems to have the main dummy for safetycore too. You can install this and it should be fine.

In the future if your phone has it preinstalled as a system app, you’re probabl, sol and have to root to remove and replace it.