• 185 Posts
  • 251 Comments
Joined 2 年前
Cake day: 2024年7月1日
  • evenwichttoretrocomputing•Getting an old Computer online with Android Ethernet tethering - 82MHz
    1·
    2 小时前

    Only works if the phone is modern enough to have usb-c plus you must buy some hardware from Amazon (or pay much more, I suppose). Fuck that.

    If you have a FOSS router laying around, you can simply put it into wifi bridge mode which inverts the wi-fi so it’s used to connect to the uplink, while the ethernet ports serve up the cloud. No need for a phone.

    If you have a spare non-FOSS router w/USB and phone, the router may be able to usb-tether to the phone. E.g. a Fritzbox would likely work for that.

  • evenwichtOPtosdfpubnix•Cannot create new communities
    3·
    4 小时前

    The community is the first of its kind. There is nothing in the fedi with the same name, past or present.

    Nor would it matter if it did exist. The Lemmyverse db shows lots of communities with the same name across different instances.

    Try it. Create “lkjsdfcjai9frej09frfe4trj”, which is just some random string that would not exist anywhere. It gives “that community already exists”.

    (edit) I see that you have not created any groups since 2023.

  • evenwichtOPtoRight to be Offline / Offgrid / Analog / Unplugged 🔌📪📖📟📝@sopuli.xyz•Situations where analog is better than digital
    1·
    25 天前

    There are close to 3 people in the world that compose them the way you describe.

    Luckily anyone can join the club if they want their faxes to have over-achieving quality. There is no law against it.

    Also you have to have a fixed phone line

    Not at all:

    1. There are 3rd party fax services who can send it for you.
    2. Fax over VOIP works if you select the right algo and have reasonable latency.

    Side note: “fixed lines” are just an illusion. You can subscribe to a POTS line but unless you are in a quite primitive region it will just be a VOIP service that is hidden from you at the end of your street.

    Fax doesn’t work for the vast majority of people for multitude of reasons.

    There are only 2 credible obscure corner cases that yield a fax failure. Countless things break email. Email is broken as shit:

    The things that make fax unreliable
    The things that make e-mail unreliable
    • the recipient’s client tools decide incorrectly that the message is spam and stores the message where it will never be seen
    • the receiving mail server uses a DNSBL to…
      • …block connections from the sender
      • …accept and blackhole messages from the sender (ref outlook)
      • …accept and deliver messages to a place that is never visited
    • the recipient’s mail service decides for any flawed reason that the message is spam and delivers it to a folder that will never be seen
    • the recipient uses a spamgourmet.com address and forgot to update the counter thus causing the message to be blackholed or the service provider of the protected address blocks the spamgourmet.com server specifically
    • recipient’s mail server may reject the message if the domain name appearing in the From: field does not correspond with the IP address of the transmitting server (e.g. MUA allows freetyping the From: field and sender uses a spamgourmet.com address)
    • the recipient uses a forwarding service like Namesilo, who refuses to forward messages from unrecognized senders because the forwarding service considers their own IP reputation more important than the actual delivery of a single message
    • the recipient’s mail server uses graylisting with unreasonable delay. Time-sensitive messages can miss the deadline or sending servers can give up before the time lapse.
    • recipient’s e-mail server blocks the attachment (and possibly the whole email) incorrectly flagging it as malware.
    • recipient’s e-mail address is unknown because a webmaster’s anti-spam effort…
      • …is to not publish any email addresses. Senders are forced to use a contact form that’s blocked by a sometimes broken CAPTCHA. And when the webform does work, PDF attachments are not possible.
      • …is to block e-mail address disclosure until a CAPTCHA is solved, and the CAPTCHA is broken or the sender rejects the effort required
      • …entails hiding e-mail addresses until some javascript renders them, but javascript is either unsupported or disabled by the visitor’s secure browser. There is also no indication to the visitor that an e-mail address is even available if j/s were to execute.
    • recipient’s e-mail address is unknown because the webpage publishing it blocks Tor and the visitor will be damned if they must give up their security to view the page
    • the sender simply cannot send the message because the corporation who handles the recipient’s email (e.g. is a PRISM corp like Google or Microsoft) is not sufficiently trustworthy for the content of the message
    • large corporations use DNSBLs to force email senders to relay their mail through a static IP, and the sender with dynamic IP may not consider any third party sufficiently trustworthy to see all their emails
    • sender boycotts the recipients e-mail provider
    • recipient does not have an S/MIME cert. or PGP public key, thus failing to achieve the level of confidentiality required by the sender (some sys admins even refuse to accommodate encrypted e-mail in fear that a malicious payload will get past the organizations malware scanner)
    • recipient uses an EU-based e-mail service provider, where law obligates collection of metadata (a collection that may jeopardize the level of confidentiality required by the sender), and the recipient or sender are not using a Memory Hole-capable MUA to protect their metadata
    • recipient abandons their mailbox because they have other accounts and can’t be bothered to manage all of them, and unread mail piles up
    • sender is a technologically-challenged bank or brokerage who sends multipart MIME messages and puts in the plaintext part:
      • a message saying “Upgrade your mail client” instead of the actual message
      • a large dump of unreadable machine-generated HTML indistinguishable from garbage
    • sender attaches a file in a non-standard proprietary format like MS Word and the recipient cannot view it (or does not trust it to open it for viewing).
    • the email service requires users to solve a CAPTCHA, which may be broken, might refuse to send the puzzle to certain IP addresses, or the puzzle might not be understandable. Protonmail is an example of an email service that pushes CAPTCHAs.
  • evenwichtOPtoRight to be Offline / Offgrid / Analog / Unplugged 🔌📪📖📟📝@sopuli.xyz•Situations where analog is better than digital
    1·
    25 天前

    The guy got hit by massive spam calls,

    Obviously he did not know what he was doing. Foolish to expose a voice number to gratis 3rd-party fax services. If you do it right you get neither voice spam nor written spam. Sending email and sharing an email address is a good recipe for receiving spam.

    and wasted paper

    Fax does not require paper on either side of the transmission, so no need for waste.

    and toner (thankfully not ink or thermal) like crazy.

    Toner implies laser which wastes substantially more energy than inkjet. But of course the wisest fax recipients don’t bother with hard copies at all in the first place.

    I believe faxes do have some use cases even today, but they are rather fringe.

    That’s because privacy and data minimisation is fringe. Boycotting Microsoft and Google is also fringe.

  • evenwichtOPtoRight to be Offline / Offgrid / Analog / Unplugged 🔌📪📖📟📝@sopuli.xyz•Situations where analog is better than digital
    1·
    25 天前

    Faxes are shit,

    Not if you know what you’re doing. Of course it’s shit if you feed a copy of a copy of a color doc into a scanner and send to a machine that thermo-prints hard copies from a roll of thin paper.

    If you compose in LaTeX using the Lucida Fax font, generate a group 3 fax TIFF and directly send that to a recipient competent enough to keep it electronic, the quality is so crisp the only clue that it’s a fax would be by someone with a meticulous recognition of that font, if not from a fax header.

    they are hard and rarely works

    You have to plug the machine in and power it on. Then it works. Of course email has the same prerequisite, and much more.

    For me, email rarely works. Google and Microsoft mail servers reject RFC-compliant mail from my mail server, so probably over 90% of email recipients are on a broken infra.

    and no one expects them anymore (nobody expected them even 10 years ago)

    True, as most people are not competent enough to realise fax avoids fussy and broken anti-spam algos, and that it minimises their exposure to tracking and surveillance when corresponding with an encryption-naive recipient.

  • evenwichtOPtoElectric Vehicles@slrpnk.net•Is Tesla a threat to cyclists who run red lights?
    11·
    2 个月前

    Ah, so finally you have worked out how to articulate your struggle. And it turns out to be a misunderstanding on your part. Glad I did not blow time digging through my archives and citing sources.

    There is no need to prove that OEMs can’t have cameras w/out surveillance b/c I did not claim this. Bizarre idea. I only “need” to prove my own claims (and even then, only to the extent that I care to); certainly not whatever manifestation of a strawman this is that quietly emerged in your head.

    Cameras ARE surveillance. You can have both together. Or neither. Or you can have surveillance w/out cameras. But you cannot have functional cameras w/out surveillance. At best, to satisfy whatever academic masterbation you are attempting, you can have cameras and isolated surveillance which is not shared upstream with the mothership and you can even have that w/out on-the-fly facial recognition, theoretically. But such discussions are orthoganol to my claims.

  • evenwichtOPtoElectric Vehicles@slrpnk.net•Is Tesla a threat to cyclists who run red lights?
    11·
    2 个月前

    Tesla makes cars with cameras. That alone makes them oppressive agents of surveillance.

    No. It doesn’t. Literally all modern cars have cameras. They’re required by law, and have been for some time now.

    My statement remains true despite yours. Being required by law does not cease to make them agents of surveillance. Nor does this obviate the point I was making.

    You would be foolish to assume a profit-driven corporation has no intent to profit

    Well, yes, but that’s not what’s happening. Businesses can be profitable without surveillance. They did it for thousands of years.

    That’s not how corporations work. Corporations have a duty to their shareholders to maximise profit. To fail to do so is to violate the constitution of the corporation.

    Exceptionally, there are some corporations with good causes coded into their constitution whereby profit is either impossible or not a priority. Tesla is not one of them.

    Lots of companies care about privacy

    Nonsense.

    to the extent that their consumers care about privacy.

    Not even that. Even if you have a corporation who presents itself as privacy respecting, like DuckDuckGo, in the end it is only privacy theatre in play (amid privacy scandals by DDG). It’s about perception of privacy. And that perception only relates to the patrons, not other people. A cyclist riding past a Tesla is not a Tesla customer. It’s orthoganol to Tesla’s privacy policy, even if Musk gave a shit about cyclists (when in fact Musk is outspoken against cycling infrastructure).

  • evenwichtOPtoElectric Vehicles@slrpnk.net•Is Tesla a threat to cyclists who run red lights?
    12·
    2 个月前

    No idea what you’re waffling on about, running a red light on a bike is very much illegal and punishable. They’re just unlikely to get caught because without a licence plates witness reports will just go nowhere.

    Seems clear English is not your 1st language. Indeed I said red light running was illegal and punishable. You not only missed the nuance of my reply but in fact this is central to the thesis of the thread.

    cyclists are providing one of the best arguments for facial recognition cameras at traffic lights. So good job!

    No they’re not. The argument is so shitty a gov or car maker would be embarrassed to try it. They have plenty of crimes that actually matter to point to as their excuse and cover-for-action for surveillance. But if you find a surveillance pushing gov actually citing outlaw cyclists as their cause for action, please drop us a link.

  • evenwichtOPtoElectric Vehicles@slrpnk.net•Is Tesla a threat to cyclists who run red lights?
    11·
    2 个月前

    I just don’t like assholes that think that traffic law doesn’t apply to them and almost all of those seem to be on bikes.

    This is a matter of fact. The law is clear. I don’t think you will find a cyclist who believes the law “does not apply” to them. OTOH, the law often does not get applied (enforced) on cyclists because cops have enough sense to understand the risks, the consequences, and the worth of their labor. Rightfully so. I would like to think cops also have enough humanity to consider the injustice cyclists face, but that’s perhaps overly optimistic.

    And laws adapt because of this. It used to be illegal for anyone to turn right on red. Cyclists broke that law so regularly that lawmakers decided to revisit the law, and made the wise decision to remove the right-on-red prohibition on cyclists.

  • evenwichtOPtoElectric Vehicles@slrpnk.net•Is Tesla a threat to cyclists who run red lights?
    12·
    2 个月前

    Ok so make your bike faster. Maybe put a motor on your cycle. I wonder what that would be called? Or, alternatively, make the car slower. That would defeat the entire purpose of the car, unless you’re Fred Flintstone.

    Bingo. You’re starting to figure out the flaw in your own thinking.

    Yes it does, they weren’t put there by god on the 7th day. They were put there for cars.

    Nonsense. They were put there for horses. They evolved as needed for cars. Then evolved more again for trucks. Some cities have been smart enough to continue evolving but more progressively, like a Dutch city where they retroactively realised the damage done by having a huge car infrastructure - so they converted a road back to a canal for boats.

    But to pretend that the origin doesn’t matter is willfully ignorant. That’s like saying “I don’t care why this sewer was put here, it shouldn’t be used for sewage. Instead we should use it as a clean tunnel system for walking our pets. I don’t care where your sewage goes, you shouldn’t be pooping in the first place.”

    If you could make a good case for repurposing sewer systems for dog walking, it would still be ignorant to say it matters what history brought the sewer system. Motorists don’t get brownie points for ruining cities.

    Sure, if you want absolute chaos and injuries. What do you do when two roads bike paths intersect? Just barrel through at full speed, and the biggest bike wins?

    Do you think cyclists have only 2 speeds: zero and 35 km/h? That we don’t have our choice of speeds? That yielding to the right by varying speed is not a thing?

    Look, you can run all the red lights you want, but expect to get killed.

    Different people have different levels of skill and proficiency. Perhaps you might expect to get killed if you doubt your ability to see and avoid cars.

    Claiming that the danger shouldn’t exist is selfish and conflicts with reality.

    Nonsense. The danger is a man-made creation. It can be mitigated by competent governments and civil engineers.

    If I drive my car onto a bike path and complain about bikes being too slow, who’s the asshole?

    Again, the car driver is the asshole, of course. And so obviously so that a cop would not hesitate to enforce such a situation where an asshole motorist is endangering others more than themself.

Moderates