cultural reviewer and dabbler in stylistic premonitions
Wasn’t Huawei trying to put a Backdoor into linux?
as far as i know, that has not happened.
what makes you think it did?
fremdscham++
😬
Or you could just… learn to use the modern internet that 60% of internet traffic uses? Not everyone has a dedicated IPv4 anymore, we are in the days of mobile networks and CGNAT. IPv4 exhaustion is here today.
Where are you getting 60%? Google’s IPv6 Adoption page has it under 50% still:
(while other stats pages from big CDNs show even less)
If you have ::/0
in your AllowedIPs and v6 connections are bypassing your VPN, that is strange.
What does ip route get 2a00:1450:400f:801::200e
(an IPv6 address for google) say?
I haven’t used wireguard with NetworkManager, but using wg-quick
it certainly adds a default v6 route when you have ::/0
in AllowedIPs
.
You could edit your configuration to change the wireguard connection’s AllowedIPs
from 0.0.0.0/0
to 0.0.0.0/0,::/0
so that IPv6 traffic is routed over it. Regardless of if your wireguard endpoint actually supports it, this will at least stop IPv6 traffic from leaking.
ipv4 with an extra octet
that was proposed as “IPv4.1” on April 1, 2011: https://web.archive.org/web/20110404094446/http://packetlife.net/blog/2011/apr/1/alternative-ipv6-works/
I wrote a comment here about why sealed sender does not achieve what it purports to.
This video is full of jarring edits which initially made me wonder if someone had cut out words or phrases to create an abbreviated version. But, then I realized there are way too many of them to have been done manually. I checked the full original video and from the few edits i manually checked it seems like it is just inconsequential pauses etc that were removed: for instance, when Linus says “the other side of that picture” in the original there is an extra “p” sound which is removed here.
Yet another irritating and unnecessary application of neural networks, I guess.
To answer your question: yes, YTA 🤦
Also, I’m deleting this post per asklemmy rule 3.
The tone which comes across in the video (linked from the other post I linked to in this post’s description) is unfortunately much less amicable than this article conveys.
the guy speaking off camera in the linked 3min 30s of the video is Ted Ts’o, according to this report about the session.
That pin can be found for $30 or $35 on on ebay here and here, where it is described as being from the 80s and as an “employee pin”.
I was thinking that this might have been something aimed specifically at technology buyers in US schools in the 80s or 90s, to whom Apple offered substantial institutional discounts in a (relatively successful) effort to dominate that sector. However searching the phrase “does more costs less” i found this TV spot advertising the Quadra 605 which at $1000 was the cheapest computer Apple sold when it was introduced in October 1993 (and allegedly cheaper than something else they refer to as “PC Leading Brand” 😂). That system was sold under the LC and Performa brands up to 1996, but it was only sold as a Quadra until October 1994, so, to answer OP’s question: that slogan was in use at least sometime in that year.
ip -br a
(-br
is short for -brief
and makes ip
’s addr
, link
, and neigh
commands “Print only basic information in a tabular format for better readability.”)
If copyright holders want to take action, their complaints will go to the ISP subscriber.
So, that would either be the entity operating the public wifi, or yourself (if your mobile data plan is associated with your name).
If you’re in a country where downloading copyrighted material can have legal consequences (eg, the USA and many EU countries), in my opinion doing it on public wifi can be rather anti-social: if it’s a small business offering you free wifi, you risk causing them actual harm, and if it is a big business with open wifi you could be contributing to them deciding to stop having open wifi in the future.
So, use a VPN, or use wifi provided by a large entity you don’t mind causing potential legal hassles for.
Note that if your name is somehow associated with your use of a wifi network, that can come back to haunt you: for example, at big hotels it is common that each customer gets a unique password; in cases like that your copyright-infringing network activity could potentially be linked to you even months or years later.
Note also that for more serious privacy threat models than copyright enforcement, your other network activities on even a completely open network can also be linked to identify you, but for the copyright case you probably don’t need to worry about that (currently).
Funny that blog calls it a “failed attempt at a backdoor” while neglecting to mention that the grsec post (which it does link to and acknowledges is the source of the story) had been updated months prior to explicitly refute that characterization: