Melody

joined 2 years ago
[–] Melody@lemmy.one 7 points 5 months ago

I get a free /64 and /48 directly from Hurricane Electric using their TunnelBroker and use PFSense to deploy that v6 locally on my LAN. Everything in the house has a v6 and is protected by the necessary firewalling too.

[–] Melody@lemmy.one 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children)

This is why I use PFSense and Hurricane Electric as a v6 tunnelbroker. I have working functional IPv6 with SLAAC and DHCPv6 and full Routing Advertisements on my LAN running side-by-side so that no matter which the device implements how poorly; it gets an IPv6 address and it works and is protected by the firewall.

[–] Melody@lemmy.one 4 points 5 months ago

You can automate this; but you have to make sure that the automation you create is going to respect the ratelimits. I'd recommend something simple like using a command alias or short script written for your specific IRC client.

It's what I used to do with that sort of thing; and there are plenty of well known Open Source scripts in the wild as well

As an example; I would use mIRC with it's scripting system and write my own event trigger scripts to automatically request, wait for and then accept the DCC chat requests and route them appropriately in the interface. There were also scripts that helped with getting the lists; unpacking them, and displaying those lists in my client...so I didn't have to extract the text from the zip myself, and could select what I needed from the bot.

All of this was lightweight automation that was intended not to flood the bot with commands and fed into command queueing modules that let the bots have time to process.

Sometimes in those days you could get actually (+b)anned, Auto/KILL'ed or /(G/K):LINE'ed for causing a bot to crash...so you had to be careful and respectful with regard to scripts.

TL;DR; know your bot, source channel & network rules, and write your own scripts for safety or read any scripts you import in carefully and understand what they're doing.

[–] Melody@lemmy.one 3 points 6 months ago

Aye; I remember GPM, and before they enshittified it into the ground, it was damn near comparable to Spotify.

[–] Melody@lemmy.one 16 points 6 months ago (7 children)

While this feed issue is manageable if you Pause Your Watch History and Clear Your Watch History before doing so; it does disable a lot of suggestions.

Unfortunately Google and YouTube do not make these options easy to find and they are quick to nag you about turning them back on; and You Must Refuse This and ignore the errors and whines at every prompt for a while before they leave you alone.

So by it's very nature NewPipe completely defuses this garbage by simply being a much saner front-end than using the "Native" YouTube apps ever were.

You know I think YouTube might start learning their lesson if more and more people began refusing to use their scummy front-end more than strictly necessary. Unfortunately they're going to go through the usual stages of grief while doing so and they absolutely are currently trying to attack apps like GrayJay and NewPipe with spurious lawsuits.

So instead; maybe those of you who "Pay" for YouTube Premium should simply cancel your service and start donating that amount to projects like NewPipe, when that is possible. (Yes I know Team NewPipe will not accept donations for legal reasons, but similar projects do exist, like FreeTube or Invidious, that can and do accept donations to cover costs for server hosted things in their developments.)

[–] Melody@lemmy.one 49 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Not only did they guess it should be updated; they even left plenty of mechanisms directly in the constitution that allowed for it to be updated radically whenever situations changed so drastically that a supermajority agrees that it should be changed.

Unfortunately that too is the downfall; as those who want to exploit the status quo are also empowered to leverage their money and power to prevent such a majority from taking place. The constitution is far from perfect, and it absolutely should've been amended many hundreds of times over, not just the paltry less than 30 times we've managed to do so already.

[–] Melody@lemmy.one 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Copying is not theft. It does not remove the original.

If I send you a PDF copy of a book that I own, that I scanned into a PDF myself; that is not theft, that is ownership. So long as I make you pay nothing for that copy; and I do mean $0.00, I cannot charge you for any costs incurred while making that copy; I am not breaking the law until a judge summons me before them and tells me I am abusing my rights and are summarily breaking the law in another manner as is judge's right to do.

I own the physical book and I am allowed to enjoy it in any manner I see fit...including loaning the book to you physically or digitally in perpetuity.

The law supports and recognizes fair use and ownership. It is up to us not to abuse that ownership. I do not recommend making 1,000,000,000 copies of a book and giving them away just because you are mad at the author. That's an asshole move and likely to get the metaphorical judge I described involved in the matter.

Similarly; it is an asshole move for a content creator to sell you a copy of a book or some other media and then go about trying to tell you how you may or may not enjoy the material you just purchased. They can recommend ways to enjoy it; but they do not have an enforceable right, even through contracts, to tell you that you cannot exercise your ownership rights in a certain way...unless you overdo it to asshole levels and a judge and/or the police get involved.

[–] Melody@lemmy.one 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

In most cases either they filled option 1; or having no access to a purchase option they feel is reasonable fills option 2.

Few people, if any, are truly rank 15. I don't give a damn what the corporate folks say or think. Most of the time they're basically blaming the victims of their own poor decision making anyways.

I don't agree that Rank 10 should be placed where it is; it is more akin to Rank 15 in similarity...the attitude is more entitled than it should be. Ripping your own copy should be something you are not only allowed; but encouraged to do...as it often nullifies any content protection that might interfere with your right to enjoy the content that you purchased in a way that the rights holder didn't expect. Furthermore it removes all doubt that your digital copy is legitimate, as you derived it from a physical copy that you already own...and have fair use doctrine as well as purchase license and access to.

Ripping your physical copies is also a further message to creators that DRM and Copy Protection is an unacceptable format.

As an additional note: I firmly believe that people who sell copies of things they pirated are ranked at 15. They are blatantly ignoring the law for no justifiable reason. You as a customer purchasing from those people are not liable for their law breaking however; similar to how you are not liable for people who are ignoring the law by handing out free pirated copies to everyone. The burden of breaking the law is upon the one committing the crime.

The reason I advocate ripping your own copies; is simple. If you got caught with a copy you obtained from someone else's physical copy; you could be reasonably ordered by a judge to "Forfeit (delete all copies in your possession of) that illegitimate copy". It's likely to happen when they catch the person making the illegal copies. Ripping your own personal digital copy from your physical copy is provably not piracy. It's a different act altogether; as you are using something you already own within your rights of possession and property. Instead, ripping your own copies is legal preservation.

[–] Melody@lemmy.one 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

Ranks 1 through 9 Is Not Piracy as you've paid for your copy in some manner typically. Rank 11 & 12 is not piracy

Ranks 10, 13, and 14 are JUSTIFIABLE Piracy. You are free to debate the merits of doing these things or choose not to do them yourself.

Rank 15 is blatant piracy and is arguably socially unacceptable and fully subject to full penalty of law. Don't be that guy!

My ethics are simple; You must fulfill one of two conditions:

  1. You pay for a legitimate copy (license) in some format. How much you pay does not matter as long as the transaction is for a permanent (indefinite time length) license and not blatantly a rental. This legitimate copy does not have to be purchased directly from the IP Rights holder or their designated and authorized (re)sellers.
  2. You are 100% unable to obtain a reasonable, purchasable, legal copy in your city of residence through any physical or digital means. Any Digital options available to you must not be reasonably obtainable due to unreasonable cost of buy-in.

Notably:

Both rules exclude the ability to "Rent" a piece of content from somewhere, "Borrow" it from a library and "Buy" it online from a digital market place that is exclusive to a piece of technology you do not own and do not plan to, and would not elect to purchase.

As an example; any and all content that is exclusively available on iTunes or exclusively through using an iDevice is not reasonably obtainable; I do not own an Apple device, I do not wish to buy or own one. I would be within my rights to pirate any content I see as desirable. I despise Apple and refuse to use their products; so I am within my rights to pirate anything that requires you to use an Apple device or account to access the right to purchase it.

This would not be acceptable if the content were available through Google Play; as I already own an Android Smartphone, and the marketplace is reasonably accessible and reasonably priced in most cases.

This does not include situations where accessing the ability to purchase content requires a large number of convoluted steps. For example; I shouldn't be required to mail in a letter only to obtain a temporary credential necessary to access the purchasing front-end, submit more personally identifying information than necessary to fill an order in an account creation process, or be required to call a specific phone number to support to ask for an exception to a policy or permission to purchase or retain access to a purchase.

As a final clarification: Streaming == Renting.

No 'ifs', 'ands', or 'buts' about it. A streaming service is renting access to a specific batch of content for an agreed upon price, paid at a regular interval. This is not a purchase. Instead it is a patronage agreement.

[–] Melody@lemmy.one 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

There's always been an invisible 4th dimensional peg that's not talked about in most USB-A connectors, and you are required to flip your plug around so many times to get it in to the correct position.

Some of us have that inherent knack to sense the 4th dimensional peg without perceiving it...and thus we do not have this struggle. Meanwhile others completely lack intuition of the aforementioned 4th dimension and struggle endlessly with that peg.

[–] Melody@lemmy.one -3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Not likely. The english is awkward but pretty heavily means the drive is failing.

view more: ‹ prev next ›