irotsoma

Problem isn't the hosting, it's the content licensing. It's difficult to get a legal copy of the content that you can actually possess. Without that, doesn't matter if you are streaming the content through self-hosted servers or playing it locally. It's the content itself that is the real issue. It's often just not "sold" only "licensed" or "rented".

They don't want change. That's never been the goal. The goal is to create enemies, but make them people who are not able to fight back. Fascism requires an enemy to "fight" in order to get people to ignore the bad stuff and focus on the fight. Fascism can't survive in a peaceful, happy society. The mistake Nazis made was picking a group that was too large and they didn't already have a noose around.

Nah they'll be able to get out, likely for free if they don't mind a bit of detainment first. What they should be doing is finding a new place to work or seeing if their current employers will move them to an office in another country. And big companies should be expanding their offices in other countries to make up for the loss of workers, or moving their offices back to places where American tech workers are willing to live rather than moving to conservative states and then pretending there aren't educated workers for them to hire in the US.

The system that scours search results doesn't store the images, but they are stored. Maybe or maybe not by Google, but someone is collecting them and keeping them in order to feed whatever "AI" or hashing algorithm comes next.

And it's actually not the "whole point" in a technical sense. It's mentioned because they want to make it sound less harmful. You'd never compare actual images directly. That would take a ton of storage space and time to compare a large set of files byte for byte. You always use hashes. If it was easier or cheaper to use the images directly, they would, just like the "AI" agents that do this in other systems need the actual images not hashes.

Problem is that this means the images have to be kept around in order to compare them. So, often these caches of child porn and other non-consensual images which often are poorly secured are targets of hacking and thus end up allowing the images to spread more rather than less. And the people sharing these things don't usually use the services that do this kind of scanning. So in general, it has more negative than positive effect. Instead, education to prevent abuse and support for the abused would be a better use of the money spent ln these things. But more difficult to profit from that and it doesn't support a surveillance state.

Depends on what you want. You can have the application have an https certificate which could either be one issued my a globally trusted issuer or could just be a self issued certificate that caddy is configured to trust. And caddy can then add the globally trusted certificates from let's encrypt or whatever. But that definitely requires extra steps. Just, how secure do you want to be?

I use forgejo on a raspberry pi.

Don't include the non-encoded part of the data or it will corrupt the decryption. The decoder can't tell the difference between data that's not encoded and data that is encoded since it's all text.

No surprise. Most software from large public companies is poorly optimized because they value current profits over future sales and in near monopoly markets there's no real fear of losing future sales over poor reputation. So build it good enough to demo and sell as cheaply as possible while sales people are taught to hide the flaws and that's all it takes.

Do you mean this config option?

[server] 
hosts = 0.0.0.0:5232, [::]:5232

That is binding the service to a network interface and port. For example your computer probably has a loopback interface and an Ethernet interface and WiFi interface. And you can bind to an IPv4 and or IPv6 address on those interfaces. Which ones do you want radicale to listen to traffic from and on what port? The example above listens on all interfaced both IPv4 and IPv6 and uses port 5323 on all. Of course that port must not be in use on any interface. Generally using this notation is insecure, but fine for testing. Put the real IP addresses when you're ready.

I mean the whole calculation was ridiculous anyway on how they determined the "net", so it was never true. It's just now it's much more difficult to fudge the numbers since they are using so much dirty power for LLM training.

No surprise. The US issued any real action in antitrust cases in many decades. I think the AT&T split is really the only major one I can even remember having any real impact on improving competition. Since then lobbying and campaign contributions have skyrocketed and corporations own most of the government anyway, so there's almost no chance of a court being able to issue a real punishment.