I know that patent trolls are a thing, but I was under the impression that these patent trolls would still have to produce lots of specific but still broad patents. For example, they will file a patent for a whole class of compounds for treating a specific group of diseases without having the data to back it up.

But in this case it is even worse!

They patented a trivial idea - “send voice commands from phone to computer” - without providing any novel practical implementations of the idea. How is this acceptable?

patent/US9794348 Using voice commands from a mobile device to remotely access and control a computer

Abstract

A method of using voice commands from a mobile device to remotely access and control a computer. The method includes receiving audio data from the mobile device at the computer. The audio data is decoded into a command. A software program that the command was provided for is determined. At least one process is executed at the computer in response to the command. Output data is generated at the computer in response to executing at least one process at the computer. The output data is transmitted to the mobile device.

The title looks dystopian but the idea seems sensible.

Assessing the quality of sources was a pretty important section covered multiple times during my schooling. But not everyone was schooled like me, and others simply didn’t practice their source-checking skills after school.

I would need to see the ‘pre-bunking’ videos to form an opinion on them, but from reading the article I get that the aim is to create high-quality videos about how to assess sources, and help distribute these videos to the masses. It is a very important skill and many people lack it, so if that is what they will do it is a great idea.

The MAX_TITLE_LENGTH is applied to posts that are fetched from other instances using activitypub. The posts that are posted within an instance do not pass through that processing step.

Wow, thanks.

In my mind, I do see the concept of a revolution that way - a revolution that topples the power structures creates a power vacuum. This leads to instability and for a competition to fill that void. The idea is that the people who have a better chance of winning the race to fill those voids are those who are willing to exploit the most effective tools of power - violence, oppression, and reward. So, a revolution creates an instability that is likely to be exploited by the greedy to the detriment of others.

But I have never been in a revolution. My ideas of what a revolution looks like comes from that trope that you mention - movies, video games, and novels will narrate these dynamics, and through repeated exposure to this logical sequence it has come to feel natural.

You bringing up this point makes me re-consider what I believe. On the one hand, I do not think that these ideas are fully invented - they make sense, and many revolutions in history have indeed followed this trope, and a revolution will cause an instability that will hurt people, so I am not going to do a 180 and throw away all my intuition about the topic.

However, it is also obvious that reality is a lot more nuanced, and it makes sense that these tropes can be used to highlight and re-inforce the negative aspects of a revolution. It is good to think about that.

He is a very respectable journalist. I was not familiar with his work, but I have looked at some summaries and excerpts and it is for sure fantastic work. His fame and prestige is absolutely enough of a reason to listen to him and take him seriously, but no amount is enough to accept what is attributed to an “unnamed source” says as gospel. You have to trust him, his ability to pick a reliable source, and the source itself - without identifying the source! It is quite a bit to ask for such a claim that is as important as this one.

I read “Postdocs deserve the” and looking through the comments I was rather confused about the strong anti-postdoc sentiment 😰

Ok, that’s fair. I understand.

We all have biases. I am not trying to say that a “bias” is necessarily “wrong”. Biases can be very helpful - perhaps even necessary to stay sane. Imagine trying to live a perfectly un-biased life!

What is important is to be aware of our own biases - and also to think of how the biases of the “other side” will manifest themselves.

In this case, you have said:

But deranged liberals of all ranks, from mainstream “journalists” to the rabid NATO defenders of lemmy.ml, tried to gaslight you into thinking that at best the jury was still out on who did it and at worst accused Russia for doing it even though they stood to lose the most because of the outcome.

And I take this to mean that this article will once and for all settle the question of who was responsible. But using a secret source is not going to be enough to settle the question - those biased in favor of the US will claim that the source is a lie, some of those without much of a vested interest either way might think "Alright, great story, but what’s the evidence? "

Answering this question is going to require a lot more than “Someone told me. Trust me. I won a Pulitzer”.

The article sets forth an interesting case, and the idea that the mines were planted during BALTOPS 22 is compelling.

However, the author uses a top-secret source that conveniently has a birds-eye view of the issue, personally participated in different secret meetings at different points of the process, and is knowledgeable in multiple key areas. With so many specific details, it should be easy for this source to be identified by the other people involved.

This is an extraordinary source that is perfect for this piece. Accepting an extraordinary source requires extraordinary evidence. The source chooses to remain anonymous - and that is sensible - but without supplying any evidence to validate the source’s claims the author won’t earn the trust of many of us.

When accepting whether to trust a piece of information or not - ask yourself: would I believe equally-sourced claims of the opposite? For example, if a journalist claims that Putin personally ordered the attack - and the evidence provided for the claim is “a close source to Putin told me”, followed by a cohesive and sensible story of why Putin would want to do that, would you believe that right away? If the answer is “no”, but you do find yourself trusting this source immediately, then you are experiencing a confirmation bias.

Yup, this was fixed in version 0.0.24! No worries.

What version do you have? I think you have one of the older versions, you can find the latest one here: https://github.com/dessalines/jerboa/releases/tag/0.0.26

I think that the newest update changed something such that the the instances that updated to 17.0 are no longer being recognized by the crawler. So the crawler hasn’t been updated to deal with the changes.

This is an article from shortly after Osama Bin Laden was killed.

The official story is that the Navy Seal team took the body somewhere in Afghanistan where it could be positively identified. Then, while on board an aircraft carrier, Bin Laden was given a Muslim funeral and his body thrown into the ocean.

The Pentagon claims that this was done in order to respect Muslim tradition and because they did not want the body to be buried somewhere on land where other extremists would be able to build a temple.

There are multiple reasons why the body can be considered of value. For example, interested parties might need very hard evidence of Bin Laden’s dead, with a ‘trusted’ test result made abroad not being enough. And also because of the body’s historical value and its value as a collectible (as bad as that sounds).

So, if the US is faced with two options:

(1) Bury the body at sea

(2) Lie about burying the body at sea

Option (2) would give them every benefit of (1), but they keep the body and its associated value. Since there is no possible way to disprove the claim of a body being thrown into the ocean, other than finding the body and identifying it, it is quite an easy lie.

The conspiracy theory is that those in charge of making this kind of decisions in the US would chose to lie in situations where it will optimize the outcome, and that they have done this in this case.

As a ‘conspiracy’, it is part of the larger topic of trusting the government and those in power. Will those in power tell the truth when an unfalsifiable lie will lead to a better outcome?

Osama Bin Laden’s body was not buried at sea

Great job figuring that out!

At some point it would be fun to work on some new guides anyway :-)

Oh… Yes, I can. I had not encountered before a tor-only clearnet url. That’s cool.

Url appears to be broken at the moment

Hey, thanks! And thanks @sascuach@lemmy.ml for the initiative! It is a good idea to have these sidebar swap links!

Sorry I had missed this. I missed the post in my own instance, I just found it by coincidence while browsing beehaw to discover communities 😅

I think that if you use the new docker-compile file, the one that includes the NGINX block, then you might not need to go through the step of the nginx configuration.

I have not tested this myself though, but I can test it when I make the updated tutorial.

I can do that, but I can’t right now, I am very busy writing for my thesis unfortunately :/

If I manage to write enough tonight I might be able to do it tomorrow.

I would be lying if I gave you a number. I have never had to deal with many users, so I can’t really tell you at what point you can expect problems. It could be 50 active users at once, it could be 500, maybe even 5,000 - I really don’t know. Consider that uploaded images will fill up your SSD, and that multiple active users at once will go through your network connection.

But I really don’t know the limits. Someone else hopefully can chip in.

Oh no! It is possible to save your SSL certificates by simply copying the files into your computer, then you don’t need to run the certbot again.

Try removing the lemmy.conf file from /etc/nginx/sites-enabled,

And then run:

sudo wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Kradyz/Tutorials/main/files/uebishe.conf /etc/nginx/sites-enabled/uebishe.conf

sudo systemctl restart nginx

Or, I have made an nginx config file that will work for you

If you already created an nginx configuration file, move it somewhere else. Then, get the new configuration file to the nginx folder, and then restart the nginx service by running these two commands:

sudo wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Kradyz/Tutorials/main/files/uebishe.conf /etc/nginx/sites-enabled/uebishe.conf

sudo systemctl restart nginx

Ah! So you skipped this step:

Now i skip old step about “wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/LemmyNet/lemmy-ansible/main/templates/nginx.conf -O lemmy.conf”

You need to have the lemm.conf file under /etc/nginx/sites-enabled, this is the file that tells nginx how to manage the connection. Don’t skip that step! Get that file and modify it by adding your domain name

Yes, you would be able to run all of those at the same time. Of course, there will be limits - if the lemmy and matrix instances grow, at some point this setup can become insufficient. But if the amount of users is kept manageable, you should be fine.

Power consumption can be something to consider since the server would ideally be running 24/7. I use a plug power meter to measure how much power my appliances use while running. A raspberry pi 4 8GB with a 1TB SSD can also run these instances and pulls < 10 W, so if you see that your server is pulling considerably more energy I would suggest looking into power management.

What is it with the US media and their obsession with balloons.

Do any of you remember balloon boy?

No worries! Good luck!

Sorry, I did not realize that these files had not yet been updated with the changes necessary for version 0.17.0, which are described here: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/blob/main/RELEASES.md#lemmy-v0170-release-2023-01-31

I could not find an example of the files configured correctly in github, so I have uploaded some example files. You get them this way:

wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Kradyz/Tutorials/main/files/lemmy.hjson
wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Kradyz/Tutorials/main/files/docker-compose.yml

Then modify the variables inside {}, like the domain name and the database password.

• The US could easily be much more transparent about their analysis of the object, and release a detailed report about how they have come to the conclusion of the balloon being a spy balloon.

• China could easily be more transparent about the source of the balloon. Release the name of the laboratory that launched this balloon, show the schematics, describe the tools it has, and show examples in the litarature of this specific type of balloon been used for research.

Remove the following blocks from the docker-compose file:

networks:
  # communication to web and clients
  lemmyexternalproxy:
  # communication between lemmy services
  lemmyinternal:
    driver: bridge
    internal: true

  proxy:
    image: nginx:1-alpine
    networks:
      - lemmyinternal
      - lemmyexternalproxy
    ports:
      # only ports facing any connection from outside
      - 80:80 
      - 443:443
    volumes:
      - ./nginx.conf:/etc/nginx/nginx.conf:ro
      # setup your certbot and letsencrypt config 
      - ./certbot:/var/www/certbot
      - ./letsencrypt:/etc/letsencrypt/live
    restart: always
    depends_on:
      - pictrs
      - lemmy-ui

And try again. Does it work?

Do you want to install a fresh instance, or do you want to upgrade an instance?

If you are installing fresh, most of that tutorial is still going to work out. But you now need to pull the config file this way:

wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/main/config/defaults.hjson lemmy.hjson

If you install the more recent docker version, you don’t have to install docker-compose the same way. Follow the instructions from the website, and use ‘docker compose’ instead of ‘docker-compose’.

The nginx configuration does not need to change.

What problems are you getting?

No problem!

I thought it was a UI issue so I had created an issue there: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy-ui/issues/918

I can tag my messages as “mod” messages in communities that I don’t mod in other instances

There is a newer version that fixes this: https://lemmy.ml/post/743037

I don’t know where I fall on in the political spectrum, but I do find that the values of socialists overlap significantly with my own values. I agree with a lot of what I see posted to lemmygrad, but there are also many posts that I do not agree with or perhaps perceive as too biased.

Usually I don’t interact if I don’t have something positive to add, but sometimes I am in the mood to talk about it. I have found that in this space I am able to openly bring up points that I disagree on or ask questions as an ‘outsider’ without worrying about people being hostile to me. You have a great community here 👍

An issue was opened for that three days ago:

https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/2678

I don’t think it is possible through the UI at the moment.

Ah, great! Congratz!

Oh, that looks like an error in your lemmy.hjson settings file. If you share that one too with the passwords redacted I can check.

If you go to your lemmy directory and type docker-compose logs -f lemmy, what does it say?

Can you share your docker-compose.yml file, removing the database password and any other private information?