Welcome to Incremental Social! Learn more about this project here!
Check out lemmyverse to find more communities to join from here!

@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Kalcifer

@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works

All of this user’s content is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

To those of you with nothing to hide: One day you might have. Because you don’t make the rules. (mullvad.net)

The most common argument used in defense of mass surveillance is ‘If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear’. Try saying that to women in the US states where abortion has suddenly become illegal. Say it to investigative journalists in authoritarian countries. Saying ‘I have nothing to hide’ means you stop...

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

There are a surprising number of grammatical errors in that blog post. Did anyone proof read it, I wonder?

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Ah, right. I forgot that they're based in Sweden. That's understandable if it's simply a lack of familiarity with the language, but, still, I would expect a company like Mullvad to at least have one native-equivalent English speaker to look over their public facing English stuff. None of this is the end of the world, ofc — I'm just mildly surprised.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

While topically interesting, a lot of those graphs are either saying the same thing or are misinterpreting an exponential.

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Nearly 90% of their servers are blocked to do common internet tasks .

Perhaps your browsing habits are severely impacted by Mullvad being blocked, but that doesn't seem to be the universal case. I've had the occasional hiccup with a few sites that block VPNs (Mullvad's IPs), but "90%" is quite an exaggeration when compared to my personal experience.

Kalcifer , (edited )
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

But it’s icky so many people still think it should be illegal.

Imo, not the best framework for creating laws. Essentially, it's an appeal to emotion.

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

That certainly does seem to be their goal, but, imo, it's a bit extreme — especially given the context.

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Just the environment where the impersonations are theorized to take place — given the type of people who likely use the service, the ways people interract on the site, what the site is used for... imo, it seems unlikely that changing an "a" to a "4" is going to result in a damaging impersonation.

Kalcifer OP , (edited )
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Ha, that username is apparently not allowed. They require that a username contain at least one letter.
https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/c5531a9d-67f1-46d7-8c4f-9547343514ed.png

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

It’s a nigligible inconvenience

This community is called Mildly Infruating, after all 😜

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Under capitalism, a properly regulated, and competitive free market is not zero sum.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Such a thing is impossible.

What is your argument to support this statement?

The current system is working exactly as intended

If the current system is intended to be capitalist, then it is not working as intended, as was described above.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

What is your argument to support this statement?

You got it wrong. What's your empirical evidence to support your statement?

I don't really understand this. You claimed that it is impossible. Saying something is impossible is different than saying that it hasn't happened. To claim that something is impossible is a final statement where certain rules can never be satisfied. As such, you certainly can provide an argument for your claim. That being said, my counterargument would be a simple example: Person 1 wants an apple, and Person 2 wants money. Person 1 and Person 2 agree that 1$ is a fair price for an apple. Person 2 gives the apple to Person 1 in exchange for Person 1 giving 1$ to Person 2. Person 1 is happy because they have an apple, which they wanted, and Person 2 is happier because they received money, which they wanted. The net satisfaction is greater than zero — both sides received something that they wanted.

If the current system is intended to be capitalist, then it is not working as intended, as was described above.

Not at all. This is capitalism.

I can use one simple example to counter that: If one can find an example of a monopoly then the market in which that monopoly exists is not capitalist — one example to prove that point is private utilities.

Kalcifer , (edited )
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

That not how science works. You don’t get to posit a theory without falsification and declare it as true until someone else comes up with a falsification for it and tests it.

You have no evidence you just have wild theories based on “perfectly spherical cows in a vacuum” .

Did you not read my previous message? Or did you, perhaps, misinterpret it? My original thesis was "under capitalism, a properly regulated, and competitive free market is not zero sum.", which you claimed was impossible. I then provided a simple example for why it was not impossible. You seem to perhaps take issue with the example's idealistic nature, but the original thesis was idealistic, so I'm not sure why there would be an issue with that. This is purely a conceptual discussion — my statement wasn't making a claim about how effective regulation is at ensuring adequate competition. So I'm not really sure where the issue lies.

And monopolies don’t prove the non existence of Capitalism. They’re it’s natural end result.

Monopolies appear to be the natural end result of a true free market — that is, a market with no regulation. Capitalism simply describes a competitive market. To that end, note that a monopolistic market — ie an anticompetitive market — is, by definition, not capitalist. In practice, to ensure fair competition, a central governing body is required.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Classic intrinsic monopolies.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

That was a very informative and interesting read. Thank you for sharing!

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

That's a loaded question.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Google/Linux == Android?

Should I learn Docker or Podman?

Hi, I've been thinking for a few days whether I should learn Docker or Podman. I know that Podman is more FOSS and I like it more in theory, but maybe it's better to start with docker, for which there is a lot more tutorials. On the other hand, maybe it's better to straight up learn podman when I don't know any of the two and...

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Podman is [...] “better” because it doesn’t run as root, but other than that I don’t know of any advantages to it that are not a derivation of “it runs as a regular user”.

Podman can run in rootless mode (with some caveats), but it is still able to run as root — it doesn't only have the capability to run as a "regular user".

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

so might run into more roadblocks with its use.

This has been my experience with Podman. That's not to say that these roablocks aren't without reason, nor merit, but there is always a trade off of convenience when optimizing for security.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Ubuntu, then arch.

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Given the extremely limited resources: why bother with containers?

While, from what I can see, containers virtually don't add any resource overhead, it's honestly moreso that I favor consistency. Containerization is well documented, it is well supported, and its behaviour (if one is familiar with the platform) tends to be more predictable than running a service natively.

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

It’s a raspberry pi 1. Those things have 256mb of RAM

The exact model that I am using, which I referenced in my post, actually has 512MB of RAM.

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Now that it is up and running, do you think it’s is a good service?

That's a good question. The service itself is well made — it functions as advertised, it has satisfactorily intuitive UX, a sizeable community, and a good amount of documentation. I'm not sure, yet, if it's a service that I personally need — I set it up mostly for the benefit of others.

While you may not like the setup

The main pain points were the sparse, vague, and misleading documentation that I encountered — I understand that documentation is difficult, but for a company like Raspberry Pi, my standards, and expecations are quite a bit higher. I probably won't use Podman anymore, as I don't find its setup overly user friendly, currently, as compared to something like docker. I had never used Podman before, and I was considering switching my existing services over to it, so this was sort of meant to be a trial run on something with little impact. I will keep an eye on Podman, but I will stick with Docker for the time being.

do you enjoy the results?

I personally don't notice its effects as much, but I do like what I'm seeing for others. It has also made me aware of some other issues that I'll have to look into, so that is good.

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

I am curious what kind of performance you’re seeing for DNS requests considering how old and anemic the first gen Pi is

I haven't done any rigorous tests to gather empirical data for an accurate comparison, but, annectdotally, it, at least, doesn't feel any slower than when I had my router (Linksys E8450) resolving to Cloudflare.

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

I'm currently running it in privileged mode (as sudo) so it has access to all the ports.

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Yeah, I have already tried rebooting the device. To no avail, unfortunately.

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

systemd-resolved is not running ­— it isn't even installed on the device. I also already mentioned that I have looked into this fact within the body of the post.

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

systemd-resolved is not running ­— it isn't even installed on the device. I also already mentioned that I have looked into this fact within the body of the post.

Kalcifer OP , (edited )
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

This is the correct solution.

No it isn't. systemd-resolved is not running ­— it isn't even installed on the device. I also already mentioned that I have looked into this fact within the body of the post.

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

I am running the container in priveleged mode, so it has access to those ports. That being said, I already tried in unpriveleged mode by giving access to ports above 53 in /etc/sysctl.conf and applying it with sysctl -p. All to no avail, of course.

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

That is not the solution. As I have already mentioned a number of times, I am running the container in priveleged mode — I am running the container as root. It has access to all ports.

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

If you read the post, I already did that. It shows no device using port 53.

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

I appreciate the suggestion, but I have already tried essentially all alternative network commands to see if one might yield a different result. They, of course, all show the same things — nothing is listening on 53. That command specifically only shows that sshd is listening on 22, which is expected.

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

You still running into trouble?

Yes.

Are you able to run ss -alnp as root?

I have already tried checking if something is listening on 53 in about 10 different ways. That command yields the same outcome as before — nothing appears to be listening on 53.

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Yup. I ran # nc -u -l 0.0.0.0 53 to listen on port 53. Then I ran # drill @127.0.0.1 53 archlinux.org in another shell. I saw the request in the listening shell.

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

You can always do what I do, and just blow up the install and start fresh.

This may be what I'll have to do. I just don't understand what's going wrong here. It's so strange.

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

See the solution in the post.

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

See the solution in the post.

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

See the solution in the post.

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

If you are interested, a solution was found. See the post for the update.

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

See the post for the solution.

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Yeah, take a look at the solution at the top of the post.

PSA: Docker nukes your firewall rules and replaces them with its own.

I use nftables to set my firewall rules. I typically manually configure the rules myself. Recently, I just happened to dump the ruleset, and, much to my surprise, my config was gone, and it was replaced with an enourmous amount of extremely cryptic firewall rules. After a quick examination of the rules, I found that it was...

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

I could be misunderstanding your comment, but you don't seem to have answered my question of why I don't see my rules anymore.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • incremental_games
  • meta
  • All magazines
    •