Those share buttons are trackers themselves. So it’s not about “supporting” those websites by publishing content to them, it’s about undermining the privacy of your readers and doing the opposite of what you preach, and “supporting” those websites by feeding them much more valuable user data. As another comment said, just put a button to copy the permalink and let them paste themselves if they want to share.

As for you sharing a link on the mainstream social media platforms yourself, I’d actually encourage that. Cory Doctorow auto-publishes links (not content) to his articles on as many social media platforms as he can (sorry, can’t find the article in which he describes it). The point is that he still retains control over his content by hosting it himself, he controls the (lack of) trackers and ads, and gaining traffic from these platforms is still to his and his potential readers benefit. Bending your rules a little to reach more people and maybe even convert them to be more privacy-aware is fine.

deleted by creator

I second the idea of a VPN instead of directly exposing devices or software to the internet. Requires more work and learning but it’s more secure. I would argue that well-known VPNs are more scrutinized and pentested than any camera software ever.

A hash has a fixed length, including MD5. There’s no reason to cap password (input) Iength. You can hash the whole bible and still get the same length hash. So either they don’t even hash it, they’re idiots, or they try to be unnecessarily cautious to avoid some other limit / overflow, like POST max size (which would still be counted in at least KB, not several characters). The limit on what special characters you can use is also highly suspicious - that’s not how you deal with injections / escaping your inputs.

I’m rebooting my router every week via a crontab because some dynamic dns update process fails from time to time and I find it hanging. No time to debug the actual problem.

Maybe she thought her airbags would suffice. Sorry, low bar joke, but couldn’t help it. Also, the whole story might be bullshit.

Instead of my ID, I submitted a picture of dolphins and the text “So long and thanks for all the fish!”. And never came back.

My friend doesn’t get it

Is Keepass there? Good. Upvote.

Turris Omnia. Powerful hardware, auto updates, config backup / restore (with anti-bricking feature), SIM slot, etc

Pack it out, pack it in, let me begin…

As someone reading this thread, I’m stuck in an endless loop.

Where do you keep your KeepAss master password?

In my head. If you use a long passphrase, it’s easy to remember, easy to type, and secure.

The pregenerated book of codes is used since ancient times and it is interesting, but I would much prefer to educate people to use passphases instead.

And everybody has a phone with them at all times, you can have Keepass on it. It doesn’t use the cloud, it’s local, and if you need to sync the password database file automatically with your PC it’s safe to keep it in the cloud, it’s encrypted and only decrypted locally. But I myself use a self-hosted instance of Nextcloud.

Holy shit, I stand corrected, those graphs speak for themselves. Bookmarked for future stats.

LE: Well, there’s also the section about average age of failure in their newest report: 2 years and 7 months for HDDs, 14 months for SSDs.

True, but it depends from person to person and it counts if you have a small or big drive, how often you watch and rotate your media, how large the media is. If you only have a 1TB SSD, and often download and watch blue-ray quality, 20 movies will fill it. It won’t be long until the same blocks get erased, no matter how much the SSDs firmware tries to spread the usage and avoid reusing the same blocks.

Anyway, my point is, aside from noise and lower power consumption advantages, I wouldn’t use SSDs for a NAS, I regard them as consumables. Speed isn’t really an issue in HDDs.

I use Hard Disk Sentinel, it’s not free, but it also monitors drives in Windows so you have an early warning at the first sign of issues. Also logs historic data (writes, temperature, etc) and displays them as graphs.

Failure rates for sdd are better than hdd

I’m curious on where did you find this. Maybe they have lower DOA rates and decreased chances to fail in the first year, but SSDs have a limited usage lifetime / limited writes, so even if they don’t fail quickly, they wear out over time and at first they have degraded performance, but finally succumb in 5 years or less, even when lightly used (as in as OS drives).

To avoid DOA / first year issues with HDDs, just have the patience to fully scan them before using with a good disk testing app.

From my experience, SSDs are more prone to failure and have limited writes. They are ment for running the OS, databases for fast access, and games / apps. They are not ment for long time storage and frequent overwrites, like movies, which usually means download, delete and repeat which wears the memory quickly. One uses electric current to short memory cells and switch them from 0 to 1 and viceversa, the other uses a magnetic layer which supports a lot more overwrites on the same bit.

If keeping important data on them, I would use them only in a redundant RAID configuration and/or with frequent backups so I wouldn’t cry if one of them fails. And when they fail, there are no recovery options as with HDDs (even if very expensive, at least you have a chance).

I also wouldn’t touch used server SSDs, their lifetime is already shortened from the start. I had 3 Intel, enterprise-grade SSD changes in our company servers, each after about 3 years - they just wear out. For consumer / home SSDs the typical lifetime is 5 years, but that takes into account minor / “normal” usage, ie. if used as OS disks. And maybe power users could extend that with moving the swap/pagefile and temporary files (ie browser cache, logs, etc) on a spinning disk, but it defeats the purpose of having an SSD for speed in the first place.

If you have media (like movies) in mind, you’ll find sooner than later that you’ll need more space, and with HDDs the price per GB is lower than SSDs.

If you have no issue with 1. noise, 2. speed (any HDD is fast enough for movie playback and are decent for download), 3. concurrent access, or 4. physical shocks from transport, go with HDDs, even used ones.

My two, personal opinion cents.

Not to brag by any means, but english isn’t my first language I knew all of the above.