Last time they’ll ever do that! Pass the buck of hosting web-facing Plex servers onto somebody else.

PatchLess

I’m guessing Steam decided against being able to leave your games to somebody else when you die because of how most EULAs I’ve read work: they are often non-transferrable licence and so in most cases the store has no choice in the matter. Now GOG are willing to say they will do what they can given this limitation, but I can see why Steam wouldn’t: it’s a whole lot of work for realistically not much benefit. It’s probably easier for Valve to gift the same games over to the new person.

Adding to this: doesn’t CAD usually want 3D acceleration? I would definitely try running the CAD software with the same VM configuration you plan to use in your Proxmox VPS first before progressing to make sure it (a works at all and b) is responsive enough. You could even try nesting Proxmox in Proxmox to emulate the kind of performance you’d had on a VPS.

For reference, the 1TB Steamdeck OLED at Gamesmen is $450 AUD more than what Valve will be selling it at. Unless I’m mistaken, Gamesmen are the only retailer selling the Steamdeck online that isn’t a marketplace (such as Big W), so Gamesmen is probably the best place to but at the moment since they will be forced to take on any warranty claims unlike resellers on marketplaces which may able to just dodge that by closing up shop.

SnipeIT just cares about serial numbers, models and manufacturers (you can just use a serial number in the asset tag section) for assets and I think consumables drop a bunch of those requirements. You might be able to put groceries under consumables? I’m less familiar with consumables in SnipeIT to be honest.

SnipeIT is really good and supports SSO including via LDAP.

They don’t need to be interested though. You could conceivably dump all the password you collect in an attack and just start trying them automatically like you would any other breach. Find a bunch of bank accounts and your chances you getting away with millions are high. Not to mention: a breach like this means changing all your saved passwords to re-secure them which is a multi-day affair.

Self-hosting removes the risk of somebody compromising Bitwarden’s servers and adding malicious javascript to send off your master password to a bad actor instead of just processing it locally like it’s designed to.

I don’t think ZFS can do anything for you if you have bad memory other than help in diagnosing. I’ve had two machines running ZFS where they had memory go bad and every disk in the pool showed data corruption errors for that write and so the data was unrecoverable. Memory was later confirmed to be the problem with a Memtest run.

I have a pretty new AMD system I use for gaming. The vast majority of games run in a Windows VM in Proxmox with GPU passthrough with exception to Fortnite which runs directly on hardware on a different boot drive specifically because Easy Anticheat blocks VMs. That dedicated install becomes less and less attractive by the day.

The problem is if anti-cheat does not have full access but the cheat does, the cheat can just hide itself. Same for anti-virus vs viruses. It’s particularly nasty on free-to-play games where ban evading really just means you have to get a new e-mail. It’s the same reason why some anti-cheats block running games in VMs. Is it fool proof? Hell no! Does it deter anybody not willing to buy hardware to evade VM detection or run the cheat on completely separate hardware? Yes.

Personally, I’d prefer having a stake/reputation system where one can argue that they can be trusted with weaker anti-cheat because if you do detect cheating then I lose multiplayer/trading/cosmetics on the account I’ve spent $80 USD or more on. Effectively making the cost of cheating $80 minimum for each failed attempt. Haven’t spent $80 yet? Then use the aggressive anti-cheat.

I don’t really see the advantage here besides orchestration tools unless the top secret cloud machines can still share it’s resources with public cloud to recoup costs?

Could it be a fear of a software patent relating to the design? Back in the day Apple had one for swipe to unlock that prompted Android to use different patterns.

Mentoning Iceweasel in 2024?! Where did you find this meme?! Debian stable?!

I have really mixed feelings about this. My stance is that I don’t you should need permission to train on somebody else’s work since that is far too restrictive on what people can do with the music (or anything else) they paid for. This assumes it was obtained fairly: buying the tracks of iTunes or similar and not torrenting them or dumping the library from a streaming service. Of course, this can change if a song it taken down from stores (you can’t buy it) or the price is so high that a normal person buying a small amount of songs could not afford them (say 50 USD a track). Same goes for non-commercial remixing and distribution. This is why I thinking judging these models and services on output is fairer: as long as you don’t reproduce the work you trained on I think that should be fine. Now this needs some exceptions: producing a summary, parody, heavily-changed version/sample (of these, I think this is the only one that is not protected already despite widespread use in music already).

So putting this all together: the AIs mentioned seem to have re-produced partial copies of some of their training data, but it required fairly tortured prompts (I think some even provided lyrics in the prompt to get there) to do so since there are protections in place to prevent 1:1 reproductions; in my experience Suno rejects requests that involve artist names and one of the examples puts spaces between the letters of “Mariah”. But the AIs did do it. I’m not sure what to do with this. There have been lawsuits over samples and melodies so this is at least even handed Human vs AI wise. I’ve seen some pretty egregious copies of melodies too outside remixed and bootlegs to so these protections aren’t useless. I don’t know if maybe more work can be done to essentially Content ID AI output first to try and reduce this in the future? That said, if you wanted to just avoid paying for a song there are much easier ways to do it than getting a commercial AI service to make a poor quality replica. The lawsuit has some merit in that the AI produced replicas it shouldn’t have, but much of this wreaks of the kind of overreach that drives people to torrents in the first place.

If sellers can prove that they never touch a customers home address they’re less exposed to data breaches which might look good on for insurance companies.

Honestly, this sounds it something a shipping company could provide. When you go to use Paypal for example, you get redirected to their site, put in your details and they complete the transaction without the seller knowing your financial data. The same could be done with shipping.

My preference would be for WHOIS data to be private unless the owner wants to reveal who they are. I do think it makes sense to require the owner to provide that information to the registrar so it can be obtained by the courts if needed.

I wish we had something like temporary/alias e-mail addresses for physical addresses. So you go to ship something, you provide a shipping alias which the shipping company then derives the true address from and ships the item. The moment the true address is revealed, the alias expires and can no longer be used. This way only the shipping company gets to know your real address and that is ideally discarded once the order has been completed. So forward shipping without the extra step.