Pika

oh for sure, it made sense that they wanted to make sure was fixed. Just was super alarming the speed it was advertised that the relay was there!

reminds me of my first mail server, accidentally set up an open relay and got a lot of abuse reports from mail providers saying they blocked my server due to it. Took forever to get fixed again.

It’s something on your end, I just VPN’d through both Fortaleza and Sao Paulo and both can load Weebly just fine

Honestly, the only one I’m really looking at is Ranch Sim because it’s down to like 2.50, none of the other ones really look all that attractive, to be honest.

Kicking myself for buying Icarus when it was $20 because it’s now 3.50

I wonder why companies do this? does it actually make it get done faster? Last I knew most workers were only efficient at their job for like the first 5 or 6 hours if that, spending an extra 8 ontop of it sounds like a waste of salary.

in the scamming world, its never the same person, like whoever implemented that policy was smoking something good.

In the fraudster world you either sell the codes that you ripped off a card, or you have another person buy the card to give it to you. It’s never the same person, the fact they are banning based off suspicious activity screams big head who doesn’t understand the impact or reason for their changes outside “defrauded cards bad”

So did I up until windows 10, which makes sense because my laptop that had run windows 8.1 had been upgraded from Windows 7 and had the issue every time it seems to have a version release. My windows 10 system was a factory install since I switched to a PC instead of a laptop at that time, and as such ran UEFI out of the box, I haven’t had any issue with windows nuking a boot partition since.

I’m assuming it’s because bios boot still uses an MBR which means the actual boot record is at the beginning of the disk, which windows also tries to use for recovery and its boot. With GPT setups like how UEFI requires, there’s a dedicated partition that is used instead for storing EFI files, so it allows for a much clearer co-existence.

Basically if you are running a UEFI system, there’s no excuse for Windows to actually nuke grub anymore, because the entire reason it was nuking it in the first place was it was overwriting the MBR at the beginning of the disk so the system no longer knew where grub was. With UEFI the system boot would be the UEFI loader -> windows loader or grub (or like how my system is brokenly setup UEFI -> grub -> windows because I like the traditional style of selecting windows from grub)

that’s the fun part! you don’t 🦊

Yeah, I was gonna say I dual boot and I can’t recall the last time that Windows nuked my UEFI bootloader.

But back when Windows still did BIOS boot, it was like every major release without fail.

edit: Rewreading your post it sounds like you meant updating the BIOS as a whole and not BIOS boot, so that’s my bad. Yeah, I definitely haven’t seen your circumstance, I had that happen consistently before Microsoft embraced the UEFI style booting

I live far enough away that this might not be a feasible route but, that’s an interesting option, I haden’t thought of it. Granted I am not as close as you are but, according to the site with the correct transponder I might be able to still. I would need to look into regulatory requirements to it though as that’s a bit of a distance over the air.

thank you for that idea, defo something I will look into and if it works I’ll discuss it with them!

My parents have that issue ISP wise. You can walk 100ft and have fiber service through my current provider, but their hill is run by another ISP and that ISP wants almost triple what my ISP wants for fiber so they still use DSL. They get 5-10 mbps down on a good day. It barely functions Netflix on 460p and if anyone else is using it, it fails to function.

Regardless of my opinions for it, it’ll be a societal requirement with the advancement of technology unless we wish to move away from a monetary based system.

I personally am fully for it, I am concerned about the productivity drop if it is implemented too early, however such a system needs to exist for continued societal functionality.

agree, why I mentioned that in the post. Still doesn’t change the outcome that it degraded the channel which was why I used it as an example.

yea you have it yes, if they have confirmation that you had said evidence, and they were seizing the device to collect more evidence regarding it then it would be obstruction of justice and destroying evidence, but they need to be able to prove that claim. Unless they can prove that claim then it’s an unlawful search (excluding port authority specific laws regarding searches because checkpoints generally have reduced restrictions on lawful searches)

Fully agreed its dangerous

The exact circumstances around the search—such as why CBP wanted to search the phone in the first place—are not known

until this isn’t an unknown it’s impossible to voice opinion on the legality of this action. If they had evidence that there was something incriminating or against the law on the device and can prove the user intentionally destroyed the info to impede the investigation(honestly this last part is fairly easy as long as the first part can happen) then yea what he did would defo break the law, but until those aspects can be determined this seems like a massive abuse of that persons 1st(due to activism), 4th (due to the seizure of private property without a lawful search), and 5th(again private property) amendment rights.

I haven’t had a kernel update on Debian that triggered the “you should restart” message in quite some time. I was under the understanding that most newer systems now use splicing at the kernel level to not require periodic reboots.

technically the check for judicial was supposed to be a mix between it being a life position and the legislative branches impeachment/revocal process. The court was supposed to be an impartial non-political, but it’s been slowly slipping into a very heavily political system.

in the case of constitutional amendments, this gets even more complex. Technically states have the ability to force a constitutional convention hearing in the case of a legislative branch either not bringing to the floor or denying an amendment that has clear popularity in the states.

The issue with this is that it requires a 2/3 vote of the states in agreement, and that it also requires a system that only has the bare minimums defined legally on it. It doesn’t define what a convention is, or even how many people in the state have to agree. It’s fully left on the states to decide it on an individual basis how that system would work for them.

How it would work is

1. current legislative refuses to hear a popular amendment
2. at least 2/3 of the states organize some sort of system that can act as a commitee somehow representing the overall choice of the states citizens
3. upon 2/3 of the states agreeing, a convention is forced potentially excluding the legislative branch as a whole
4. the bill that gets created at said convention is then put up to the 3/4 state vote required to ratify it.

I thought the intent behind that wasn’t to revoke previous pardons, but was to prevent a president from pardoning themselves in an impeachment trial.