[–] 2 points 27 minutes ago

It’s a tool, use it where it works and don’t where it doesn’t.

But that doesn't work with the people creating AI as they are totally dependent on the believe that AI can do absolutely everything (and an artificial general intelligence is just moments away...) to justify they insane investments. So they will make up a million stupid narratives why some people are "actually" not using AI as it obviously can't be because of AI shortcomings...

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 1 point 33 minutes ago

    Your best options when you are already doing a fresh new install:

    • make both drives one virtual one with LVM, then encrypt that virtual drive

    But that's not related to BTRFS at all and can be done with any file system

    • encrypt both drives with the same password, format them as BTRFS raid0 (again making it one big virtual drive), use the systemd hooks in your initramfs because then the first password you will provide on boot will unlock both drives (only if this fails on the first try you will be asked for additional passwords - also if you mistype your password once you will then have to unlock both by typing the password both; you only get one attempt to unlock everything with the same password).

    If you can do this is mostly depending on the specific installer (I would assume only the first option works by default...). It's definitely possible in general but "I'm not technical enough" doesn't go well with all the details you have to figure out yourself when the installer doesn't do all the work.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 43 minutes ago*

    If they have the same password you can just unlog them at boot with one password. They SystemD hook for unlocking LUKS drives automatically tries the first provided password on all encrypted drives it's supposed to unlock. Only if that fails it will ask for additional passwords.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 4 points 48 minutes ago* (1 child)

    The super-rich and corporations want that

    The real problem is that because the super-rich want it the majority is also on board because they are mostly brain-dead and will parrot every shit media pours into their empty heads.

    Which again leads to: the people want Trump. Why they want him is a completely different topic. But the fact does not go away just because you don't want it to be true.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 5 points 3 hours ago (1 child)

    Kreißsaal-Hörsaal-Plenarsaal

    Also mir fallen spontan jede Menge negative Dinge zu Andrea Nahles ein. Aber diese dümmliche "Mimimi... die haben nicht <hier immer den eigenen viel härteren Beruf einfügen> gelernt und wissen also doch gar nichts vom echten Leben"-Polemik wäre nicht mal unter die ersten 10 gekommen.

    (PS: Und nenn mich zynisch, aber wenn ich raten sollte, würde ich davon ausgehen, dass dir zu unserem jetzigen Bundespräsidenten bessere Kritik einfällt... obwohl der ein Musterbeispiel für die Kategorie wäre.)

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 3 points 4 hours ago (1 child)

    Prinzipiell halte ich das für 'ne gute Idee, aber leider nicht praktikabel.

    Die deutsche Medienlandschaft ist inzwischen so kaputt und der "Journalismus" an einem derartigen Tiefpunkt, dass selbst ein großer Teil der scheinbar vernünftig formulierten Überschriften Clickbait sind, wenn sie mit dem tatsächlichen Artikel vergleicht. Erschwerend kommt dann noch hinzu, dass Artikel gern mal mit 2, 3 oder auch einem halben Dutzend unterschiedlicher Headlines veröffentlich werden, um zu sehen welcher besser klickt.

    Lange Rede, kurzer Sinn: Es ist inzwischen so viel auf die eine oder andere Art Clickbait, dass man keine vernünftige Regel zu dem Thema schaffen kann, ohne dass letztendlich jeder einzelne Fall der Abwägung bedarf. Und das ist nicht machbar und auch niemandem, der für die Überwachung der Regeln zuständig ist, zumutbar.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 4 hours ago

    Und dabei hat mir fast alles, was online geschieht, zuletzt immer das gegenteilige Bild vermittelt: dass Schüler heute nur noch schreiben, aber nicht mehr lesen lernen. Denn seine eigene Meinung zu verkünden ist wichtig, die anderer wahrzunehmen und gar zu verstehen eher nicht so.

    Und jetzt wollen die mir erzählen, dass es beim Schreiben auch hapert und dass wieder Handgeschriebenes zu verlangen, damit man nicht nur KI Murks vorgelegt bekommt, 'ne Herausforderung für Schüler sein wird?

    Verdammt nochmal; das ist doch gar nicht so lange her. Was treiben die denn heutzutage in den Schulen?

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 21 hours ago*

    The argument is extremely clear. People attacking Jews because they are Jews, outside of Israel and ones that are opposing Israel's actions, too, are in fact antisemitic. That doesn't change because they dress their antisemitism up as being "pro Palestine".

    Or: It shouldn't change the fact but somehow does in your brain. Which is the reason you can't perceive arguments as clear or coherent anymore when the underlying facts don't match you world view. Cognitive dissonance in action...

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 3 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

    No, I just reject the notion that the ongoing discussion about AI use in software production is a moral/ethical one. That's a bullshit narrative to actually discredit all the good reasons against AI by making up a mostly fictional "but it's just ideology"-argument.

    Yes actions include moral choices. But actions that are stupid and make no sense at all don't need to be discussed in terms of is it ethically okay to do it, because that's not the interesting point there.

    I won't discuss about the moral choice of hitting my thumb with a hammer, even less to when I tried hammering in a screw like a moron. So I will also not discuss imaginary topics of ethical use of AI in coding. Because it's bullshit. It produces low quality slob. It's a scam trying to tell people with no clue about programmning that they can totally do it, too, while trying to gas-light programmers into believing that they really, really need to use that tool for coding or be left behind. Using AI for coding because you already used it for debugging tasks is not an ethical discussion. Just like using a hammer for a screw because you already hammered in nails is not one. It's a discussion about what AI CAN do and what it CAN'T. Discussions if you SHOULD use AI for a specific task have to happen AFTER you determined if it makes sense first place. And to return the hammer analogy a third time (it's a magic number after all...): If someone would try to argue that we need to discuss the ethics of hammering in a screw because it already worked with a nail, would you agree that all actions have ethical implications that need to be considered or would you dismiss him because the ethical discussion is not relevant. I did the latter in my comment.

    Again: If using AI for coding for real world purposes (and I don't talk about non-technical people building their low quality app here... that's mostly a gimmick) was viable, sure... use it. Or let's start an ethics discussion then. That's fine with me, too.

    But don't pretend that the actual discussion right know, mainly lead by clueless people evaluating a new gimmick with very little understanding of its actual capabilities (and limits) and CEOs willing to believe in any snake oil if it promises to help them get rid of those obnoxious workers demanding pay (it won't - every actual fact and number tells us that AI is in fact more expensive, even before figuring in the human employees also needed to hold the leash) is one about ethical use in coding. It isn't. It's about a discussion between those that use AI for the things it can do and avoid it where it's useless and those that somehow have found their new religion and saviour and try to make everything about a) those in tech that use AI because they obviously have seen the light and converted and b) those still left in the dark and fighting their new god for made up moral or other reasons.

    That's a fairy tale completely ignoring the third group: technical people that use AI only and exactly where it makes sense. A fairy tale mostly pushed by a few people behind AI development because they already sunk such insane sums into it that they need to believe (and make you believe) that an (human level or more) artificial general intelligence is just around the corner. Just think about it: there people are actually taking about the equivalent of creating new life (new artificial conciousness) to justify their insane investments. And we should talk about the ethical implications of using AI in coding? How is that not a distraction?

    Btw... now that I thought about it (and spelled some of it out) I want to walk back to my earlier statement. If AI is actually able to do soon™ what the morons behind it are proposing, that's indeed the moment to start an ethics discussion. A very complicated one about definitions of conciousness and life... good thing that this will not actually happen.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  •  

    As this will -thanks to me being quite clueless- be a very open question I will start with the setup:

    One nginx server on an old Raspi getting ports 80 and 443 routed from the access point and serving several pages as well as some reverse proxies for other sevices.

    So a (very simplified) nginx server-block that looks like this:

    # serve stuff internally (without a hostname) via http
    server {
    	listen 80 default_server;
    	http2 on;
    	server_name _; 
    	location / {
    		proxy_pass http://localhost:5555/;
                    \# that's where all actual stuff is located
    	}
    }
    # reroute http traffic with hostname to https
    server {
    	listen 80;
    	http2 on;
    	server_name server_a.bla;
    	location / {
    		return 301 https://$host$request_uri;
    	}
    }
    server {
    	listen 443 ssl default_server;
    	http2 on;
    	server_name server_a.bla;
       	ssl_certificate     A_fullchain.pem;
        	ssl_certificate_key A_privkey.pem;
    	location / {
    		proxy_pass http://localhost:5555/;
    	}
    }
    #actual content here...
    server {
    	listen 5555;
    	http2 on;
        	root /srv/http;
    	location / {
            	index index.html;
       	} 
        	location = /page1 {
    		return 301 page1.html;
    	}
        	location = /page2 {
    		return 301 page2.html;
    	}
            #reverse proxy for an example webdav server 
    	location /dav/ {
    		proxy_pass        http://localhost:6666/;
    	}
    }
    

    Which works well.

    And intuitively it looked like putting Anubis into the chain should be simple. Just point the proxy_pass (and the required headers) in the "port 443"-section to Anubis and set it to pass along to localhost:5555 again.

    Which really worked just as expected... but only for server_a.bla, server_a.bla/page1 or server_a.bla/page2.

    server_a.bla/dav just hangs and hangs, to then time out, seemingly trying to open server_a.bla:6666/dav.

    So long story short...

    How does proxy_pass actually work that the first setup works, yet the second breaks? How does a call for localhost:6666 (already behind earlier proxy passes in both cases) somehow end up querying the hostname instead?

    And what do I need to configure -or what information/header do I need to pass on- to keep the internal communication intact?

    view more: next ›