Shadow

joined 1 year ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] Shadow@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] Shadow@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 month ago (2 children)

He was always a scum bag, but 911 made him seem like a golden boy for a little while.

[–] Shadow@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think they're trying, they have the tamaverse: https://tamagotchi-official.com/us/series/uni/

[–] Shadow@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You could just swap the two disks and see if it follows the drive or the link.

If the drive, rma it. I don't put a lot of faith in smart data.

[–] Shadow@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Usually means a failing drive in my experience.

[–] Shadow@lemmy.ca 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Ntfs isn't going to care or even be aware of the hypervisor FS, zfs or btrfs would both work fine.

Making sure you don't have misaligned sectors, is pretty much the only major pitfall. Make sure you use paravirt storage and network drivers.

Edit: I just realized you're asking for the opposite direction, but ultimately the same guidelines apply. It doesn't matter what filesystems are on what, with the above caveats.

[–] Shadow@lemmy.ca -3 points 3 months ago (11 children)

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity

[–] Shadow@lemmy.ca 10 points 3 months ago

Had a zfs array on an adaptec raid card. On reboot the partition table would get trashed and block the zfs pool from coming up, but running fdisk against the disk would recover it from the backup.

Had a script to run on reboot that just ran "fdisk -l" on every disk, then brought up the zfs pool. Worked great for years until I finally did a kernel upgrade that resolved it.

[–] Shadow@lemmy.ca 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'd believe it. I've had hundreds of Linux servers that don't have any desktop Gui at all deployed on them.

Linux desktop users make up an absolutely tiny fraction of Linux installs.

[–] Shadow@lemmy.ca 97 points 3 months ago (2 children)

We've definitely noticed an increase in signups at lemmy.ca when that news was announced. Not all active users yet, but a lot of signups

[–] Shadow@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago

I haven't actually setup vlans on mine yet so can't help there.

All my sfps worked without messing with autoneg though.

[–] Shadow@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yes. I've always splurged on nice cards for my personal stuff. I think it's more about the write behavior of Linux than anything else, since I've never had a card die in my camera.

I refuse to use a pi with SD at this point. Saving $50 isn't worth my time to reinstall things.

 

First off before we get into this I want to make clear that I'm not just throwing shade at the specific instance involved, and I'd also like to avoid focusing on the specific content of thread. I think this is a larger issue that warrants an open discussion, this could have happened with any other instance on a wide variety of thread topics.

Context:

  1. Swordgeek@lemmy.ca created this thread asking for people to resist Tucker Carlson being allowed into Canada - https://lemmy.ca/post/12683277
  2. A user on a very large instance reported the thread with the reason "Inciting Illegal Behavior"
  3. This report was seen and cleared by lemmy.ca admins, as it didn't violate any rules and definitely wasn't inciting any illegal behavior
  4. The external admins removed the post based on the report
  5. Sworkgeek was DM'ed by automod to let him know, otherwise he would have no idea the largest lemmy user base can't see his thread
  6. Swordgeek asked about cross-instance removals here - https://lemmy.ca/post/12724897
  7. Swordgeek asked about appeals for the removal here - https://lemmy.ca/post/12789496

There's more discussion around this in the threads linked above, they're worth a quick read.

TLDR: swordgeek made a post asking for political action and someone reported it with a fake reason, and an admin on a large instance removed the post. This removal would only impact their users, giving a largwe lemmy user base a selectively censored view of the lemmy.ca community.

It concerns me greatly that a lemmy instance can act as a censor and push the biases of their admins, on users who are completely unaware it's happening. It also concerns me that a user could manipulate other users, if admins aren't looking closely at the reports they get and just blindly remove things.

IMHO instance admins should not be moderating communities, that is the job of the community mods. Admins should only be involved in urgent + serious reports that are for things like CSAM, dox'ing, death threats, etc. All other reports should be left up to the moderators of the community to deal with.

If an instance wants to block a specific community or defederate then by all means, but instances selectively censoring content in a non-visible way? No thanks.

Can we have some sort of group policy that major instance admins should restrict their moderation activities, to significant rule violations?

view more: next ›