Yeah, this is just an issue with the Lemmy post’s title. The article is clear that 15% are using controllers now, up from 5% in 2018.

I understand that

I’m not convinced

It’s largely the first one, at least according to The Man Who Killed Google Search.

See also the Hackernews discussion and this follow-up article by the same author (with links to an article with Google’s response, summaries of other discussions on the topic, etc.)

the proof is in the pudding with this one

It isn’t.

as you must also ask yourself why E15 is banned during summer months in the first place.

I did. And I shared that in my comment above.

Your source doesn’t share any data on the topic, even just as a summary, but it links to summertime smog, which links to “smog-causing pollutants”, which says:

Section 211(h)(1) of the Clean Air Act prohibits the sale of gasoline that has a Reid Vapor Pressure greater than 9.0 psi during the “high ozone season,” which runs from June 1 to September 15. (RVP is a measure of volatility; high-RVP gasolines release more volatile organic compounds into the troposphere where those VOCs contribute to ozone formation.) Gasoline-ethanol blends below E50 are more volatile than straight gasoline and cannot readily meet the 9.0 psi RVP requirement. Congress created a “one-pound waiver” at Section 211(h)(4) that increases the RVP limit from 9.0 psi to 10.0 psi, but—and here’s the catch—the waiver is only available to “fuel blends containing gasoline and 10 percent denatured anhydrous ethanol.” That is, only E10 can take advantage of the one-pound waiver. Although E15 is slightly less volatile than E10, its RVP still exceeds 9 psi. It needs a one-pound waiver to meet Section 211(h)’s RVP limit in the same way that E10 does, but it is not eligible for one under current law.

The article’s justification for why E15 isn’t legally permitted is that there’s a law against it, which is circular logic. From the environmental protection perspective, it doesn’t sound like there is data suggesting that E15 on its own is worse for the environment than E10. If the only argument is a legal one, it’s not a good argument.

If you can answer that question you’ll likely find the information you’re looking for.

I did, and I shared that answer in my comment above, too - but it’s not the answer you seem to think it is.

Afaict from reading that (and one of the sources, and its source) it boils down to the fuels’ “RVP levels” (which have an impact on volatility and the amount of VOCs given off) being past a particular threshold. E10 is also past that threshold, but it has an exception that E15 doesn’t have. However, by that same measure, E15 is less volatile than E10.

The author also expressed concern about expanding corn production as a result of expanded E15 and that there haven’t been sufficient studies on the impact of E15 on the environment (particularly in the summer months). But that’s also paired with a statement saying that “consumers don’t want E15,” which detracts from the previous arguments; if true it means their impacts, if any, would be minimal.

I didn’t read every link from that page but none gave a better reason.

My takeaway is that it sounds like we don’t have any data showing that E15 is worse than E10, so the obvious move is to actually start funding those studies.

I also found https://foe.org/blog/2012-05-understanding-e15/ which is very anti-E15; however I wasn’t able to verify their claims because none of the linked articles loaded for me.

Looks like we found the target audience for that app!

If your Java dev is using Jackson to serialize to JSON, they might not be very experienced with Jackson, or they might think that a Java object with a null field would serialize to JSON with that field omitted. And on another project that might have been true, because Jackson can be configured globally to omit null properties. They can also fix this issue with annotations at the class/field level, most likely @JsonInclude(Include.NON\_NULL).

More details: https://www.baeldung.com/jackson-ignore-null-fields

Third, a redirect is obvious

A redirect isn’t necessary if you control the DNS servers. If you control the DNS servers, you can MITM the website for any visitor because you can prove that you own the domain to a certificate authority and generate a new, trusted HTTPS cert. (Depending on specifics this may or may not foil the anti-phishing capabilities of Passkeys / U2F.)

If everyone has solar panels on their roof, you can still have the central grid and you can still share power from house-to-house, though.

Generally speaking, decentralized solar refers to a centralized grid that is heavily augmented with decentralized solar, not “truly decentralized” solar.

UBI doesn’t give any power to those who own the means of automation, nor does it take power away from laborers. Automation does that. Automation reduces the leverage of the laborer by reducing the capitalist’s reliance on labor.

We have the same leverage regardless of whether we have UBI or not, but the leverage of employers is reduced with UBI. That said, if more people opt not to work thanks to UBI, then the people who choose to work will see their leverage increased.

Having centralized solar doesn’t preclude a homeowner from also installing solar, and decentralized green energy has other advantages over centralized green energy.

less wasteful

Where’s the waste? If you collect more than you use, you can store it or send it back to the grid. If this is an efficiency concern (“you’re collecting less energy than the same amount of paneling would”), then it’s not really relevant as by that same logic, not having solar is “more wasteful” than having it.

The WHO recommended a minimum indoor temp of 18º C (and a max of 24º C) for health purposes (and assuming appropriate clothing) back in 1987 (and they still stand by the lower bound, though the upper is locale dependent - e.g., 21-22º in Boston vs 30º in Thailand), so I’m not surprised that dipping below that is unpleasant.

They aren’t. From a comment on https://www.reddit.com/r/ublock/comments/32mos6/ublock_vs_ublock_origin/ by u/tehdang:

For people who have stumbled into this thread while googling “ublock vs origin”. Take a look at this link:

http://tuxdiary.com/2015/06/14/ublock-origin/

"Chris AlJoudi [current owner of uBlock] is under fire on Reddit due to several actions in recent past:

• In a Wikipedia edit for uBlock, Chris removed all credits to Raymond [Hill, original author and owner of uBlock Origin] and added his name without any mention of the original author’s contribution.
• Chris pledged a donation with overblown details on expenses like $25 per week for web hosting.
• The activities of Chris since he took over the project are more business and advertisement oriented than development driven."

So I would recommend that you go with uBlock Origin and not uBlock. I hope this helps!

Edit: Also got this bit of information from here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/chrome/comments/32ory7/ublock_is_back_under_a_new_name/

TL;DR:

• gorhill [Raymond Hill] got tired of dozens of “my facebook isnt working plz help” issues.
• he handed the repository to chrismatic [Chris Aljioudi] while maintaining control of the extension in the Chrome webstore (by forking chrismatic’s version back to himself).
• chrismatic promptly added donate buttons and a “made with love by Chris” note.
• gorhill took exception to this and asked chrismatic to change the name so people didn’t confuse uBlock (the original, now called uBlock Origin) and uBlock (chrismatic’s version).
• Google took down gorhill’s extension. Apparently this was because of the naming issue (since technically chrismatic has control of the repo).
• gorhill renamed and rebranded his version of ublock to uBlock Origin.

Is it possible to force a corruption if a disk clone is attempted?

Anything that corrupts a single file would work. You could certainly change your own disk cloning binaries to include such functionality, but if someone were accessing your data directly via their own OS, that wouldn’t be effective. I don’t know of a way to circumvent that last part other than ensuring that the data isn’t left on disk when you’re done. For example, you could use a ramdisk instead of non-volatile storage. You could delete or intentionally corrupt the volume when you unmount it. You could split the file, storing half on your USB flash drive and keeping the other half on your PC. You could XOR the file with contents of another file (e.g., one on your USB flash drive instead of on your PC) and then XOR it again when you need to access it.

What sort of attack are you trying to protect from here?

If the goal is plausible deniability, then it’s worth noting that VeraCrypt volumes aren’t identifiable as distinct from random data. So if you have a valid reason for having a big block of random data on disk, you could say that’s what the file was. Random files are useful because they are not compressible. For example, you could be using those files to test: network/storage media performance or compression/hash/backup&restore/encrypt&decrypt functions. You could be using them to have a repeatable set of random values to use in a program (like using a seed, but without necessarily being limited to using a PRNG to generate the sequence).

If that’s not sufficient, you should look into hidden volumes. The idea is that you take a regular encrypted volume, whose free space, on disk, looks just like random data, you store your hidden volume within the free space. The hidden volume gets its own password. Then, you can mount the volume using the first password and get visibility into a “decoy” set of files or use the second password to view your “hidden” files. Note that when mounting it to view the decoy files, any write operations will have a chance of corrupting the hidden files. However, you can supply both passwords to mount it in a protected mode, allowing you to change the decoy files and avoid corrupting the hidden ones.

Say I go to a furniture store and buy a table. It has a 5 year warranty. 2 years later, it breaks, so I call Ubersoft and ask them to honor the warranty and fix it. If they don’t, then I can file a suit against them, i.e., for breach of contract. I may not even have to file a suit, as there may be government agencies who receive and act on these complaints, like my local consumer protection division.

I’m talking about real things here. Your example is a situation where the US government agrees that a company shouldn’t be permitted to take my money and then renege on their promises. And that’s generally true of most governments.

Supposing an absence of regulations protecting consumers like me, like you’re trying to suggest in your example, then it would be reasonable to assume an absence of laws and regulations protecting the corporation from consumers like me. Absent such laws, a consumer would be free to take matters into their own hands. They could go back to Ubersoft and take a replacement table without their agreement - it wouldn’t be “stealing” because it wouldn’t be illegal. If Ubersoft were closed, the consumer could break in. If Ubersoft security tried to stop them, the consumer could retaliate - damaging Ubersoft’s property, physically attacking the owner / management / employees, etc… Ubersoft could retaliate as well, of course - nothing’s stopping them. And as a corporation, they certainly have more power than a random consumer - but at that point they would need to employ their own security forces rather than relying on the government for them.

Even if we kept laws prohibiting physical violence, the consumer is still regulated by things like copyright and IP protections, e.g., the anti-circumvention portion of the DMCA. Absent such regulations, a consumer whose software was rendered unusable or changed in a way they didn’t like could reverse engineer it, bypass DRM, host their own servers, etc… Given that you didn’t speak against those regulations, I can only infer that you are not opposed to them.

Why do you think we don’t need regulations protecting consumers but that we do need regulations restricting them?

It sounds like you want these files to be encrypted.

Someone already suggested encrypting them with GPG, but maybe you want the files themselves to also be isolated, even while their data is encrypted. In that case, consider an encrypted volume. I assume you’re familiar with LUKS - you can encrypt a partition with a different password and disable auto-mount pretty easily. But if you’d rather use a file-based volume, then check out VeraCrypt - it’s a FOSS-ish [1], cross-platform tool that provides this capability. The official documentation is very Windows-focused - the ArchLinux wiki article is a pretty useful Linux focused alternative.

Normal operation is that you use a file to store the volume, which can be “dynamic” with a max size or can be statically sized (you can also directly encrypt a disk partition, but you could do that with LUKS, too). Then, before you can access the files - read or write - you have to enter the password, supply the encryption key, etc., in order to unlock it.

Someone without the password but with permission to modify the file will be capable of corrupting it (which would prevent you from accessing every protected file), but unless they somehow got access to the password they wouldn’t be able to view or modify the protected files.

The big advantage over LUKS is ease of creating/mounting file-based volumes and portability. If you’re concerned about another user deleting your encrypted volume, then you can easily back it up without decrypting it. You can easily load and access it on other systems, too - there are official, stable apps on Windows and Mac, though you’ll need admin access to run them. On Android and iOS options are a bit more slim - EDS on Android and Disk Decipher on iOS. If you’re copying a volume to a Linux system without VeraCrypt installed, you’ll likely still be able to mount it, as dm-crypt has support for VeraCrypt volumes.

• 1 - It’s based on TrueCrypt, which has some less free restrictions, e.g., c. Phrase "Based on TrueCrypt, freely available at http://www.truecrypt.org/" must be displayed by Your Product (if technically feasible) and contained in its documentation.”

Would you appreciate it more if I told you that the bar in question is a gay bar?

(Clarification: It’s not.)