rentar42

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

They are in fact the same image, as you can verify by comparing their digest:

$ docker pull ghcr.io/linuxserver/plex
Using default tag: latest
latest: Pulling from linuxserver/plex
Digest: sha256:476c057d677ff239d6b0b5c8e7efb2d572a705f69f9860bbe4221d5bbfdf2144
Status: Image is up to date for ghcr.io/linuxserver/plex:latest
ghcr.io/linuxserver/plex:latest
$ docker pull lscr.io/linuxserver/plex
Using default tag: latest
latest: Pulling from linuxserver/plex
Digest: sha256:476c057d677ff239d6b0b5c8e7efb2d572a705f69f9860bbe4221d5bbfdf2144
Status: Image is up to date for lscr.io/linuxserver/plex:latest
lscr.io/linuxserver/plex:latest
$

See how both images have the digest sha256:476c057d677ff239d6b0b5c8e7efb2d572a705f69f9860bbe4221d5bbfdf2144. Since the digest uniquely identifies the exact content/image, that guarantees that those images are in fact byte-for-byte identical.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 months ago (2 children)

"Taking care of my sick mother ..." stops them real quick.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I don't follow it either, but read up a bit on it (partially from here https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/22/anything-that-cant-go-on-forever/) and the basic gist of it seems to be:

Boeing has been fucking up perpetually since shortly after merging with McDonnell-Douglas (a company that was apparently well-known in the industry for perpetual fuck-ups) in 1997, but political influence/interests/corporate capture has prevented it from actually failing the way that commercial companies that perpetually fuck up ought to.

What we see now is just another case of some of those fuck ups becoming visible again.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

As others have mentioned (and also explained in quite some detail) you're trying to bite off a lot at once. First, for Jellyfin locally you can ignore most of that.

And if you really want to learn the ins and outs of all that (and I can recommend it, it's useful), then I suggest you start with some simple web app. Something like note taking or maybe even something trivial like a whoami service, which basically just echos some information it was sent back to you. That's super useful because you know that it is unlikely to be broken, so you can focus on the networking/port forwarding issues. And once you've got that working and have a rough feeling how this all works you can go on to more complex setups that actually do something useful.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

Those are usually the prefixes for interfaces which are not quite the same thing as networks. An interface is the surface that connects some device to a network. For example if your router treats its WLAN and its wired network as a single network (i.e. each thing on WLAN can see everything on wired and vice versa) then a specific device might still have a wlan1 and eth1 interface, each one reaching the respective physical network device, while being in the same network.

"One network" here really only means "something can successfully route between all the devices".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Note that there is some reliability drawback of spinning hard disks on and off repeatedly. maybe unintuitively HDDs that spin constantly can live much longer than those that spend 90% of their time spun down.

This might not be relevant if you use only SSDs, and might never affect you, but it should be mentioned.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Is he charged with a crime

Apparently by the Taliban, yes.

But in Europe that is not sufficient to lose the right to anonymity (and it shouldn't be, it's incredibly easy to get charged, no matter whether anything bad happened).

Do leaders of racist boomer political movements deserve anonymity?

He isn't a leader of anything. Hasn't ever been (even when he was a founding member, he wasn't the leader).

He is a nobody (as he should be). And as such he deserves anonymity, yes. Just because he tried to change himself back into no-a-nobody doesn't mean he has succeeded.

Why couldn’t he keep it confined to VierChan?

Nazis are gonna Nazi.

Edit regarding your edit: yeah, that seems pretty fishy. I don't think they should have mentioned it, but with enough inside knowledge you'd probably find him by just "84 year old right-wing extremist blogger from Austria". That is (fortunately) not a huge population. I suspect (and this is purely speculation) that the authors don't think he deserves anonymity (so they include enough information to find out who it is), but do think they shouldn't "advertise" his cause (so they make it easy to ignore who he is). Similar to how media outlets in the US have finally decided to not publish the names of mass shooters: there is very little public benefit in publishing it and a very real risk of it encouraging others.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

(Edit: this was meant as a reply to an apparently now-deleted (?) comment about why he deserves the anonymity of having his last name abbreviated).

He deserves it for the same reason a single mother raising a kid that gets involved in an armed robbery deserves it: basic human rights.

The idea of those is that they are universal and you'd have to have a very good reason to supersede them. If they are not universal, then they are just "suggestions" and then we end up with exactly the kind of society that this guy wanted.

And yes, being a major political actor is a good reason to lose that anonymity (which is also how it's handled in European media, there is no reporting on Angela M. or Emmanuel M.).

But this guy is a not a public figure in any reasonable sense any more. He's a stupid old guy that was one of the founding members of a extreme-right splinter party of a right-wing popular party in 1967. That party was banned in 1988. So it (and he) has not been relevant to anything for 35 years. He tried to become relevant with this stunt, fucked around and found out.

In fact, reporting on his full name is probably what he wants: publicity is what he was attempting to achieve, but anonymity is what he deserves (both as a basic human right and as punishment IMO).

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

In case you're not joking: It's very common in Europe to abbreviate the last name of non-public figures when reporting on them. So it's a kind of anonymization.

On the other hand: that guy was the founding member of a party, so could be argued to be a (minor) public figure. But I guess this specific report is not directly tied to that "work" of his, so it could be considered in the private sphere.

view more: ‹ prev next ›