The OOM killer is particularly bad with ZFS since the kernel doesn’t by default (at least on Ubuntu 22.04 and Debian 12 where I use it) see the ZFS as cache and so thinks its out of memory when really ZFS just needs to free up some of its cache, which happens after the OOM killer has already killed my most important VM. So I’m left running swap to avoid the OOM killer going around causing chaos.

The problem is if anti-cheat does not have full access but the cheat does, the cheat can just hide itself. Same for anti-virus vs viruses. It’s particularly nasty on free-to-play games where ban evading really just means you have to get a new e-mail. It’s the same reason why some anti-cheats block running games in VMs. Is it fool proof? Hell no! Does it deter anybody not willing to buy hardware to evade VM detection or run the cheat on completely separate hardware? Yes.

Personally, I’d prefer having a stake/reputation system where one can argue that they can be trusted with weaker anti-cheat because if you do detect cheating then I lose multiplayer/trading/cosmetics on the account I’ve spent $80 USD or more on. Effectively making the cost of cheating $80 minimum for each failed attempt. Haven’t spent $80 yet? Then use the aggressive anti-cheat.

This is why people say not to use USB for permanent storage. But, to answer the question:

• From memory, “nofail” means the machine continues to boot if the drive does not show up which explains why it’s showing up as 100GB: you’re seeing the size of the disk mounted to / .
• If the only purpose of these drives is to be passed through to Open Media Vault, why not pass through the drives as USB devices? At least that way only OMV will fail and not the whole host.
• Why USB? Can the drives ve shucked and connected directly to the host or do they use a propriety connector to the drive itself that prevents that?

What happens if the instance which hosts the community is down but other instances are online? I just made a post to a community on an instance that doesn’t exist anymore, but will other instances get that post, or is it reliant on the instance which hosts the community coming back online?

The general idea that somebody who works a lot of hours is a good/hard worker in contrast to the amount of work actually completed.

That’s not really fair on Discord. The article mentions they received an injunction to remove the content so they were forced to do this. Anybody in the same jurisdiction would have to do the same:

“Discord responds to and complies with all legal and valid Digital Millennium Copyright Act requests. In this instance, there was also a court ordered injunction for the takedown of these materials, and we took action in a manner consistent with the court order,” reads part of a statement from Discord director of product communications Kellyn Slone to The Verge.

It does have to do with being a walled platform though. You as the Discord server owner have zero control over whether or not you are taken down. If this was Lemmy or a Discourse server (to go with something a little closer to walled garden) that they ran, the hosting provider or a court would have to take them down. Even then the hosting provider wouldn’t be a huge deal since you could just restore backup to a new one Pirate Bay style. Hell, depending on whether or not the devs are anonymous (probably not if they used Discord), they could just move the server to a new jurisdiction that doesn’t care. The IW4 mod for MW2 2009 was forked and the moved to Tor when Activision came running for them so this isn’t even unprecedented.

They cry about not being able to serve ads while serving ads that are straight malware and scams. It’s especially funny when a platform goes out of their way to censor (suppress ad revenue) on videos which have even a chance of being misinformation and then proceed to play back to back ads of somebody selling their get rich quick webinar.

I kinda get it. The host has complete access to VM memory and can manipulate it without detection. Both of those games are free to play as well so cheating is more of an issue. I have no idea what Back4Blood’s justification would be though.

That said it’s a PITA and given the massive attack surface of Easy Anti Cheat it becomes easier to justify running in VMs where you can isolate things and use snapshots if there is ever a breach.

It’s a gaming machine. I mainly use a gaming VM with GPU passthrough under Proxmox, but the anti-cheat is some games (Fortnite and The Finals) don’t allow you to run them in VMs. So I run those games in Windows directly under a standard user account as a compromise.

UEFI or legacy BIOS? I recently installed Windows 11 on a machine with Proxmox on NVME but installed Windows on a SATA SSD. Windows added its boot entry to the NVME SSD but did not get rid of the Proxmox boot entry.

I’ve definitely had the same issue as you on in the past on legacy BIOS and when I worked in a computer shop 2014-2015 we always removed any extra drives before installing Windows to avoid this issue (not like the other drives had an OS anyway).

Redhat has entered the chat

Oh I completely misunderstood! I thought it was a forwarder, not dynamic DNS. My bad! Makes total sense!

Wait… so the author displayed in “by <author>” is the supposed author of the software, not the one that put it on the store? That’s insane! Also sounds like you’d be open to massive liability since the reputation of the software author will be damaged if somebody publishes malware under their name.

It should be:

• Developed by: <author of software>
• Uploaded by: <entity who uploaded to store>

Out of curiosity, why use a forwarder if you run your own DNS? Why not handle resolutions yourself?

And their landing gear is seems

Soooo…. the work of self-hosting with none of the benefits? It sounds like this has all the core problems of Twitter.

The more SSIDs being broadcast the more airtime is wastes on broadcasting them. SSIDs are also broadcast at a much lower speed so even though it’s a trivial amount of data, it takes longer to send. You ideally want as few SSIDs a possible but sometimes it’s unavoidable, like if you have an open guest network, or multiple authentication types used for different SSIDs.

The APs know who the Wi-Fi clients are and just drops traffic between them. This is called client/station isolation. It’s often used in corporate to 1) prevent wireless clients from attacking each other (students, guests) and 2) to prevent broadcast and multicast packets from wasting all your airtime. This has the downside of breaking AirPlay, AirPrint and any other services where devices are expected to talk to each other.