Manu40
So I am already involved. I was not being nosey. That's just your attitude being put out of place, and your ego showing.
And at this point, I don't care if I am breaking the rules of this site, because if it harbors people like you, then its trash.
So, I have been involved via the landlord asking my opinion due to my knowledge of technology being a bit better than his.
But here people are, acting like they are somehow 'teaching me a lesson' while acting holier than thou, when they aren't. lol
And for the record. I did offer to go do a quick check with him to help rectify the situation so that everyone is being treated fairly, since he isn't that great at calculating things like power usage.
But instead he said no, cause he figures he can do the job well enough on his own. But now that this news has come up, I thought about the situation again, and figured I would leave my comment.
Clearly a mistake. I clearly should have just done what I thought was right, and not ask a bunch of people on the internet their opinion. That was dumb of me.
But what I do know is the landlord said the fella is having a hard time not tripping the breaker with his new rig, and that their power consumption went up ever since he got the rig. So I figure that maaaybe he got the newest Nvidia GPU.
You all who are reacting the way you are, are over reacting. I haven't done anything yet. I asked a simple question, and you're all losing your mind.
Wow...
Doesn't matter how many watts. All that matters is that there is resistive heating happening.
How about the families of the 5 people in that house? What should they be told?
"Sorry folks. I knew this GPU has issues and could possibly cause a fire, but people on the internet decided I was a bad person for doing the right thing, so I ignored the potential issue and didn't let the landlord know."
I hope you have a great life.
One of these things is called 'being a responsible person'
The other is not.
You have a nice day 'Iwillbenice'.
Should I tell him this is a possibility if he is?
If someone can explain why it's not just egotism, please go right ahead. Otherwise, it really does seem like it. To me at least.
Other comments try to sort of deal with this problem in their explanations about soft and hard quotes, but they don't really deal with the part about it being disturbing.
What's so disturbing about using a feature available on your device? Especially when it does nothing harmful to the user, or recipients of that users communications?
Cause it's shaped like a simple boat. Or sort of is. Kind of like how 'soft quotes' are considered soft because they aren't in a very hard like up and down position, and are instead positioned like a feather softly falling. (or so I guess)
And if that makes Elon panic, then we are blessed doubly in that way as well, because he might either actually do something useful to make it a nicer place to be; or he might burn it to the ground.
Both are ideal in my personal opinion.
So axe away I guess, cause there is no wood to chop. The tree is hollow, from all the woodpeckers eating the grubs.
I have experienced the 'effectiveness' of Twitters moderation team on multiple occasions where they were very ineffective at upholding the very clear cut rules surrounding things like doxxing on their website. I had my personal information made public, and they ignored me. Multiple times. I even created a new account with no way for there to be any publicly available personal info; and yet I was still doxxed somehow, and they still ignored me.
So, in the spirit of HN's rules, I just want to say this, since end user experience should be allowable to share (I hope.).
Effective moderation at twitter is a myth as far as I see it, and their only talent is making it look like they have effective moderation when they care.
P.S. I also was doing nothing wrong in any case where this happened. It was all conversations which should have been considered civil (mostly) and one situation where it had nothing to do with politics or philosophy at all. Yet they did nothing.
Nothing.
I dunno pal. I think the idea behind thanks.dev can be a good one, but I think I agree with GP. This seems rather snaky to me.
Prior to that, I wasn't rate limited. After that, I was. Make of it what you will.
I'm with Telus up here in Canada. You pay the same old rates as per the usual for 5G speeds. If however you go with their subsidiary (Koodo) using the older infrastructure, you can pay a little less for similar packages.
Check it out yourself. Mind you, I use prepaid, cause I don't want to be on a contract, so I buy my own phone and use it. Koodo even charges more for bringing your own phone, since they aren't collecting on having leased one to you.
https://www.telus.com/en/mobility/prepaid/plans?linktype=sub... https://www.koodomobile.com/en/rate-plans?INTCMP=KMNew_NavMe...
Simply put, if I want to save money while still having enough data for what I actually need data for; I can either spend about 35-40$ with Koodo for 2-4GB of data at 3 & 4G speeds; or 40-50$ for 2.5-4.5GB at 4 & 5G speeds. I round things this way by the way, because of taxes. Also, auto-top up also tends to give some extra data too. 500MB more. So generous of them (/s).
And also, this is new packages. They just updated them with the new promo on Telus with that whole 1GB extra data and 10$ one time credit. I'm gonna have to call them and get that I guess. Unless they auto gave it to me? Who knows with them. Ultimately, I only need 500MB though, since I use Spotify in offline mode, and only download music via my wifi at home; and the only other thing I tend to use is Google Maps which can also be downloaded ahead of time to save on data.
Edit: I should also note that they do actually state 4G on the Telus website, but my phone says I am getting 5G speeds. Hence why I state 5G. I could care less what they claim on their website. End user experience is truth.
The government folk want it gone from theirs, but they want the rest of us to have it. Thus the claim "Our users want it" is true, in a tongue in cheek way.
I'll still use it to see what people think, but that's about all its good for in the comments section now; just like Reddit, Twitter, and others.
But at least the links are still interesting.
P.S. I'm mostly only commenting still right now because
A: I haven't made my decision yet and
B: It would be rude to ignore those who did reply to me kindly.
So, sorry, but while I didn't downvote you, I do disagree with you; entirely. Validly.
https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented/issues...
______________
> TL;DR: apparently this can happen due to an account being "rate-limited". Rate-limited accounts can post a max of five posts within 24 hours.
See : https://hn.nuxtjs.org/item/15507821
Specifically this bit:
dang 1018 days ago
That's a sign that your account is rate-limited. We rate limit accounts when they repeatedly get involved in flamewars or regularly break the site guidelines or post lots of low-quality (for HN) comments. It's a crude tool but one of the few we have to prevent such things from overrunning the site.
The thread also has interesting discussions on other mod tools: shadowbanning, IP bans, and the like.
Apparently the way to un-rate-limit an account is to send in an email and mention that you will "stick to civil, substantive comments that scrupulously follow" https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Some amount of convincing prostration may be required, as a sort of high-level turing test. There does not seem to be a way to do this while not giving away your email address (which was not required at signup).
The moderator mentioned something about repeated, human-written warnings before rate-limiting, but this does not seem to be the case now (2020) - rate limiting seems to be a milder, less-known variant of the shadowban.
________________
I think I'm done with this site.
Yes, it can cause all sorts of havoc. But my point was that it generally only causes that havoc, when improperly handled. This doesn't mean I don't have any empathy for those people however. I just want to make sure people understand that just like anything else in life; misuse = malaise and debilitative disease, etc.
For instance: Sulphuric acid. Dangerous stuff if handled wrong. Potentially deadly.
But, when you wear the proper protective gear, and are careful with it; it's "safe" to handle.
I used to have to handle the stuff. There was no issues with me handling the stuff, when I was in charge of the safety equipment. The moment they had someone else take over the night time position and swapped me to mornings due to internal politics at work; the safety went down. Why?
Because the guy in charge of the safety equipment being properly maintained at night to ensure the morning person didn't arrive to unusable equipment without a full cleaning, etc; wasn't doing his job.
This led to a new person dropping acid all over the floor, that had to be neutralized and cleaned up. A giant safety hazard. Somehow, I got the blame. Why?
Because the new person who took over that work, said I didn't tell him to do this.
A bold faced lie. I was the one who got my supervisor out of that position, because he would do dumb stuff like handled it bare handed, and say "It's just fine".
But again, internal politics prevailed. People wanted to be lazy, and stupid, with a dangerous substance. They didn't like being held accountable or responsible for their actions and the consequences that come with it. So I was pushed out of the company, citing "cultural issues".
Now, back to asbestos.
It's the same, damn, thing. If handled correctly, it is generally safe. (Safe as in it's not going to do anything, cause no one is messing with it.)
But construction workers are generally not being safe in almost any job. The few who are, are the ones who tell me the kinds of horror stories they come across, because of employing stupid people.
And home renovations aren't exactly performed by geniuses either. People start tearing apart walls and ceilings, thinking "oh this is fun, everything is fine".
And then they develop cancer, because they didn't bother to wear the proper safety gear to do something like that. And no, those stupid f'n white mask things are not the proper mask. You need something more along the lines of a P100 mask to do the job right. But who knows to do that, right? Not many people, since they think any ol mask will do.
Just like how construction workers wearing a bandana over their face think its just fine.
Just like how my old supervisor would handle the acid without gloves, cause he never got burnt so it "must be fine".
So I apologize if I come off as brash and rude, but I do not like how we placate and accommodate stupidity in society. And asbestos... while very dangerous if not handled correctly; is also a perfect example as to why many people should NOT be doing the things they are doing to stay safe.
Without looking at any studies, I almost guarantee you that almost all those people who developed cancer or mesothelioma in Australia, Canada, America, and otherwise, when it comes to home renovations only; did it improperly.
It's not like we didn't know it was bad for people to do it wrong.
What we didn't know was just how many people would do it wrong.
And yes, there are 'safe products' out there. But then again, they also aren't 'safe'.
How so?
Toxicity once flammable. None of these replacements are actually 'fire proof'. Not anywhere near like how asbestos is. They are fire resistant at best. And what's worse is that many of the things we fill our homes with to replace many of these old materials... end up being more deadly in some ways.
How so?
Take a look at this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87hAnxuh1g8
This is just one such video that shows a point I am trying to make here.
Many of these materials we have replaced in our homes, were better at keeping us safe from the dangers of sudden fire and smoke. In a 'synthetic' home, your chances of survival are extremely low in these kinds of scenarios.
This is part of why house fire deaths have risen, at least according to my knowledge.
Here is a chart that pertains to Canada, in regards to unintentional deaths; like smoke inhalation: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220616/cg-b0...
it comes from this page: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220616/dq220...
It's part of why having a working smoke alarm on every floor of the house, along with carbon monoxide detectors is so damn important now.
Problem with this whole thing though, is that there is so much debate that goes on around what causes these fires, that people forget to look at what is being burnt when it goes up in flame. So they look at the fire, and not the smoke.
What I have been told and have read from firefighters is that often the people they go in to save, are already dead from smoke inhalation. Hence why I focus on it.
And guess what would have saved them...
Older style materials, that contain things, like asbestos. Ironically enough.
You just can't win. You either use the 'safer' synthetics and risk smoke inhalation, which can cause cancer too... or your risk 'dangerous' asbestos and other such things, but they can cause cancer too...
Personally, I'm not really sure where I stand on this, since no one wants cancer obviously. But I personally don't mind having things like asbestos in things I won't ever be touching, or breathing around. I also don't mind having synthetics in areas where fire is least likely. (Like the bathroom perhaps, where a fire sprinkler wouldn't be a terrible idea.)
But again, this all goes back to my issue with society being over all kind of dumb.
And I think we need to stop serving the stupid. It's costly on society to keep them safe and in some cases, alive. It's not a favorable opinion for many, but that's kind of a them problem, and not a me problem at that point.
It's the same with healthcare and people who expect free healthcare while doing everything they can to ruin their body. It shouldn't be allowed. But then, we also shouldn't be stomping on peoples freedom to do what they wish with their own body.
But I am a believer in proper consequence for actions taken. Hence my position on this matter.
If scientists and such can find a way to make asbestos safe or safer, I'm all for it. Because it means less people will die from accidental fires that were not anyone's particular fault. It also means less need to make these synthetics which are often petroleum based in some way, or some other toxic chemical that when heated off gasses nasty byproducts that kill the inhabitants. That's before we mention the environmental effect of even making them in the first place.
See what I mean when I say we just can't win on this?
We're damned if we do, damned if we don't.
So I'd rather we use what we know works, in the places we know it can work safely. For homes, maybe asbestos isn't the best option. But the alternatives are often not much better in their own ways, which is my main point on that matter. So... what to do?
Make something better?
Sure, let's get on that. But until then, what to do?
I'll leave that there.
Again, I have empathy for those who are harmed by asbestos; but mostly only for those who weren't doing dumb things and got harmed by it anyways. The rest who were being dumb... I have a lot less empathy for.
Yeah, cause they often (as I understand) were not using proper protective measures to keep from inhaling the dust particles. A common thing I have seen on construction sites of all sorts, is the workers refusing to use some thing or the other, because it makes them uncomfortable, or harder to see (but still can) or harder to breath (but still can) or some other jackanapes idea like that.
> Yet we spent an ungodly amount of money and time stripping asbestos from buildings that had been there for decades not causing any problems. Ironically, directly exposing people to asbestos in the process (more than you'd ever be exposed to it was left undisturbed).
This is where things get real fun. When moist or absolutely damp/wet, asbestos is basically harmless (to the lungs) because it's almost impossible to breath it in at that point. If you somehow manage to breath that in, you have to basically be trying to do it. When it is dryer than chalk on a hot summers day with 0% humidity though, then yeah it can cause all sorts of problems. But even then, people removing it tend to do the thing that the other prior mentioned construction workers (often) won't do.
They wear gloves, have masks on; and even are running some form of proper ventilation. And so much of the issue is averted.
Then comes the media and government. They take edge case scenarios like these, and hype them up; whilst mixing in the prior construction workers into the data. This makes things look worse than they really are.
It's not just Asbestos you can find this sort of thing with them. You can find media and government doing this with many things if you look carefully.
But that being said, none of this is to say that Asbestos isn't a problem at all. It's just to say that Asbestos gets the treatment it does for the same reason we have warning labels on nearly everything.
We placate and protect the stupid... stupidly.
Also, I stopped using MSI when their motherboards weren't properly supporting Piledriver/Steamroller AMD cpus power and thus thermal requirements. At least, on some of the mid-high tier boards. (It said it could handle a 8350. That apparently was a lie.)
I would also be hosting a webpage or two, for blog and possibly web-shop purposes. The blog would again be "read-only", but the web-shop would require some semblance of 'write' permissions available for users. So the blog would share the 'read-only' connection ideally. The Web-shop would share the write capable connection instead.
Finally, the laptop being able to SSH into the server solely is for security purposes due to not wanting to use any form of IPMI due to some security concerns over it. I would instead being using a dedicated network card for just its purposes only. This laptop would not connect to the internet through anything, even the server. No shared connections between the network nics at all.
And I realize it may seem overkill to some people, but I don't care if it is overkill. It's when people get sloppy and cut corners that backdoors and security vulnerabilities arise. IMHO.
If I had a million dollars, I would have the most secure server in the world, lol.
The firewalls/VPN's are essentially there to act as a stop-gap measure just in case anyone decides to poke their nose in where it doesn't belong. Partially to catch them in the act, partially to stop them in the act. Ideally.
Here is a simple text explanation of sorts of my setup I have in mind.
- Nic 1: Blog/FTP, Read only. No copying files to the FTP, just copying files from it. You can only read the blog, not comment, or anything like logging in. The only person who ever needs to 'log in' is me, from my laptop.
- Nic 2: Web-shop and maaaybe a game server for testing purposes.(Considering making a simple game that will need some net code tested in the future.) This will have full read and write capability, since it will need to. This is the network that will require all the extra firewalls and VPN connections, if I use them at all. The other one might be able to get away with not having them, but this one will need them in my mindset on the matter. Logging in is definitely a thing on this part of the server.
This server will have (and maybe I should have mentioned this before) a virtualized instance for each service. This way I can sandbox each, and kill each sandbox if ever needed due to whatever malicious actions some dingus decided to do.
The laptop is essentially going to be my monitor, keyboard, and mouse; so I don't need to run multiple of each for yet another machine. (I have 2 desktops, and another laptop. I need to simplify things down a bit, even if this seems more complex, lol.)
All of this is getting its own intranet essentially, completely separated from my main internet connection. It will also be getting its own business connection instead with a static IP address for any sort of connections to the outside world. The only way my two networks will ever talk to each other, is either through the internet itself, or via a firewalled connection between the intranet I have setup, and my other computers. In this way, it will act like a local NAS for my other computers, but also for when I am out and about, and need a certain file suddenly.
I should also mention I tend to live with roommates, so I like having an extra layer of security here and there when doing so, since you never know when your roommate is going to try to do something sneaky. Like my current one who decided to give our password to the neighbors downstairs... and across the wall... Why? Because they lied to him and said they pay for the internet here too.(They don't.) Or so he claims. Quite frankly, I have found out rather recently because of this and some other things that he has a habitual need to lie and deflect. Fun stuff.
Again, this may all seem like overkill to some people, but I have long learned from experience that what one person considers overkill, another considers underkill. I would much rather do things to a point where people go "jeezus" than be the one going "ah damn".
With that note, there will be absolutely zero windows operating systems on this machine, and any machine that directly connects to it, like my laptop; will also be running non-windows environments.
The machines that do need to run windows, due to things like my capture card from Avermedia not supporting linux basically at all... they are going to be locked behind the firewalls, and allowed to connect only to the basic internet connection I already have setup. Everything else is linux. Everything. Even my 'other' laptop that currently has windows on it, only has it, because it came with it. That changes, very soon.
And besides, you wanna see real overkill?
I'll be setting up my own version of Kali essentially on the first laptop for SSH and stuff into my server, so I can also do security audits. But it's either going to be Arch based, or Gentoo based. Why?
Because I don't trust the folk who made Kali, otherwise used to be known as Backtrack. Why?
Because they still use torrents, and not magnet files, to start. And while even Arch has a way to be used on Windows now; I can at least install it via Bash on my own without needing to use some pre-made packaged installation. Hence why I might move on to Gentoo.
And I realize that no OS is perfect, and security flaws exist everywhere.
That's why I am going overkill. Also, this is how I learn things. By doing them. And I basically want to learn how to make some of the most redundantly secure servers, so that people who come to me for my services get something they can trust isn't going to be easily hacked by some script kiddie.
Yes, if I own the VPN in question and no one else has any access to it, or maintains it; then there is no issue.
But I was talking about paid service VPNs. The kind you see being advertised on YouTube and etc. I don't trust those one bit.
But I used to work in a industry that would bundle its used plastic and burn it to get rid of it... (I know, I know... terrible)
Let me tell you. That stuff doesn't burn easily unless there is already a damn good fire going, or some helper combustibles. Sure, it will burn just fine when you put a few in a fire, etc. But once you get to the kinds of loads that occur with bails of plastic...
It's going to mostly smolder and offgas from my experience. It got so bad they stopped burning it, and started selling it to some company that found a way to recycle it. Ironically enough.
So lets say you are going to be running a home server to be setup as a read only server to the outside world, but write capable through a separate port connected only to a laptop that has no internet access (or very restricted) which also has the nicety of being so obsolete it doesn't have IME or any other intel idiocy backdoors attached to it.
Would you still put a hardware firewall between each of these connections? And if so, would you also run it through a VPN on the read side of the server?
I personally don't trust VPN's, since I see them as middlemen you pay to pretend they don't keep logs of anything. Of course there is always the whole argument of 'not having anything to hide, so no worries'; but I see it as false, since the whole point of using a VPN is to hide your bits from attackers and snoops. Even if it's legitimate/legal data.
So, what would you do to avoid using a VPN, provided you can't own the VPN instance somehow somewhere due to being a bit of a cheapskate? Would some basic OpenWRT firewalled routers be enough for your purposes (and thus mine possibly) or would you go with some more complex setup where a person has to trust yet another company to not be trying to hijack data somehow?
Server intended:
Opteron build, DDR3 tech. 6 cores, hyperthreading (if any) disabled. All forms of speculation turned off. All that jazz.
1 nic port is to be setup to be downloaded data only, no upload allowed.
Other nic port is access point for SSH via old laptop setup for security purposes.
Everything running on linux, as much as possible. No windows allowed.
I know it's not ideal to have to go through the pain and trouble of being the good and righteous person who stands up against bad employers; but you HAVE to do it, or this is what happens.