rentar42

Wenn ich sehe wie viel Infos dann öfters mal einfach aus chatprotokollen rauspurzeln glaub ich schon das öfters mal was gefunden wird.

Man muß nicht dumm sein um nicht perfekt in opsec zu sein. Es gibt jede Menge Wege wie man was "liegen lassen" kann, vor allem digital. Und wenn man sich damit nicht regelmäßig beschäftigt kennt man nicht alle.

Einfach aus convenience am Laptop im Chat eingelogged bleiben? Ups, jetzt ist er konfisziert ...

That's a huge part of the reason why it took so long to put out that official classification: They made sure that their classification would hold up in court. No one is served by getting it in a bit earlier, just for it to be thrown out at the first level of court, because someone got a bit lazy on collecting all the evidence and writing up a thorough report.

That's oversimplifying it. There's a difference between a politician being untruthful of what they promise or some corporation doing some bullshit PR about how much they love cause X and coordinated fake news campaigns to stoke anger and emotions to undermine functioning systems.

The former have to at least try to present with a straight face and can be called on their lies a few month down the line.

The later can make up all manner of bullshit and don't have to hold back, because they have no "public face" other than that piece of fake news. And they don't have to be able to stand up to any amount of journalistic scrutiny because as soon as enough people have read it, it's had its effect: it doesn't matter if it's all proven to be made up after the fact, because the emotions that the initial reaction raised are the whole point: they are not trying to convince anyone about any facts, all they want is to influence emotions and behaviors.

First: love that that's a thing, but I find the blog post hilarious:

We believe this choice must include the one to migrate your data to another cloud provider or on-premises. That’s why, starting today, we’re waiving data transfer out to the internet (DTO) charges when you want to move outside of AWS.

and later

We believe in customer choice, including the choice to move your data out of AWS. The waiver on data transfer out to the internet charges also follows the direction set by the European Data Act and is available to all AWS customers around the world and from any AWS Region.

But sure: it's out of their love for customer choice that they offer this now. The fact that it also fulfills the requirements by the EDA is purely coincidental, they would have done it for sure.

Remember folks: regulation works. Sometimes corporations need the state(s) to force their hand to do the right thing.

I went with iDrive e2 https://www.idrive.com/s3-storage-e2/ 5 TB is 150$/year (50% off first year) for S3-compatible storage. My favorite part is that there are no per-request, ingress or egress costs. That cost is all there is.

without trusting anyone.

Well, except of course the entity that gave you the hardware. And the entity that preinstalled and/or gave you the OS image. And that that entity wasn't fooled into including malicious code in some roundabout way.

like it or not, there's currently no real way to use any significant amount of computing power without trusting someone. And usually several hundreds/thousands of someones.

The best you can hope for is to focus the trust into a small number of entities that have it in their own self interest to prove worthy of that trust.

This isn't specific to just netdata, but I frequently find projects that have some feature provided via their cloud offering and then say "but you can also do it locally" and gesture vaguely at some half-written docs that don't really help.

It makes sense for them, since one of those is how they make money and the other is how they loose cloud customers, but it's still annoying.

Shoutout to healthcheck.io who seem to provide both nice cloud offerings and a fully-fledged server with good documentation.

I've not found a good solution for actual constant monitoring and I'll be following this thread, but I have a similar/related item: I use healthcheck.io (specifically a self-hosted instance) to verify all my cron jobs (backups, syncs, ...) are working correctly. Often even more involved monitoring solutions cover that area (and it can be quite terrible if it goes wrong), so I think it'll be a good addition to most of these.

Can confirm the statistics: I recently consolidated about a dozen old hard disks of various ages and quite a few of them had a couple of back blocks and 2 actually failed. One disk was especially noteworthy in that it was still fast, error-less and without complaints. That one was a Seagate ST3000DM001. A model so notoriously bad that it's got its own Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ST3000DM001
Other "better" HDDs were entirely unresponsive.

Statistics only really matter if you have many, many samples. Most people (even enthusiasts with a homelab) won't be buying hundreds of HDDs in their life.

Was about to post this, this works well for me.

In my case I'm storing the DB on my Google Drive for now, but Keepass2Android supports many different systems, including "generic" things like WebDAV, so really anything should work.

While Keepass2Android is integrated with the syncing and will always check for conflicts (i.e. check for latest version before saving), the same isn't necessarily true for the desktop client. But since I rarely edit from both devices at the same time, anything that syncs to the Desktop in a somewhat realtime fashion should work just fine.

And for the few (long ago) cases where updates were overwritten, the "previous version" feature of Google Drive was god-sent! (And KeepassX can simply merge the old overwritten version into the current one and you'll get the correct merge).

I think the difference is at what level:

• don't implement your own storage redundancy system at the kernel level with a small team in a closed-source fashion, because that's the kind of thing that needs many eyes, lots of experience and many millions of hours real-world usage to fully debug and make sure it work.
• do build your own system by combining pre-existing technologies that are built by experienced teams and tested/vetted by wide/popular usage.

I feel OPs critique has some truth to it. I personally would rather stay with raidz by zfs, exactly because of it's open nature (yes, they too have bugs, nothing is perfect).

I honestly have no real opinion on this (yet), as I don't know if that would help or not.

But 90% of all policy proposals from the UK end up being terrible ideas, so I'll just assume this is stupid.