sylver_dragon

Wow. Learn something new everyday.
Thanks for sharing.

Thanks for sharing.

But, please stop using the curl command piped into a terminal pattern. Malicious actors have been abusing the fuck out of this pattern ever since the idiots at Anthropic decided that would be the official install pattern for Claude. I’ve been cleaning up infections based on people just blindly running shit like that constantly over the last couple months.

Folks, never run a random script from the internet, without being sure what you are actually about to run. If using AUR packages is considered risky. Random scripts being piped into a terminal ranks right up there with sticking your dick in a blender.

The thing about inbreeding is that it isn’t an instantly bad problem. The Habsburg dynasty was all about doing the nasty with cousins for a number of generations. It took a few rounds before the Habsburg Chin developed. Records also indicate that sister marriage was a common royal practice in pharonic Egypt.

It’s all a matter of probabilities and compounding problems. The first generation of inbred kids will probably turn out ok. With the second generation things can start getting sketchy. The more generations you go, the more likely you are to get Crimson Tide fans.

This is also why populations under a certain size can be problematic. When the family trees of a population start looking like brambles, problems start sticking out like thorns.

We walked to school in the snow. Uphill. Both ways!
Now get off my lawn!

Jokes aside, I think one thing we had pretty good was not having to live in constant fear of every stupid thing we did likely being put online immediately. And there not being an “online” where your mistakes would haunt you forever. I did a lot of stupid stuff in my late teens and early 20’s. And there is thankfully very little evidence of any of it. Kids these days don’t often have that luxury. We’re all young and stupid at some point. As you get older, that stupid stuff should be something you and your friends laugh about over beers, not something you fear a current employer is going to find at the top of the results when they google your name.

That said, the easy access to media and information is insanely cool. If I want to learn about the mating habits of marmosets, there is likely an in-depth Wikipedia article with way, way too much information. And it’s likely up to date and well edited. Compare that to whatever blurb might be in the encyclopedias at your local or school library, plus anything you could dig out of the periodicals and microfiche, and it’s not even in the same universe of information availability. Sure, there’s a lot more to sift through online. And it’s getting easier and easier to get lost in a sea of misinformation. But, you still stand a much better chance today of finding more, faster, than what we had back then. It’s funny to think back about instructors making a big deal about not using Wikipedia when it first came out. Now, it’s likely recommended as the first stop in researching something.

Also, I have a fucking computer in my pocket with more processing power than the entire world had available when we sent men to the moon. And I can use that computer to communicate with nearly anyone in the world instantaneously. And that computer can access that insane wealth of knowledge I just mentioned above. Again, almost instantly, from most places I am likely to be. I can be taking a shit in the woods and reading up on marmosets fucking while chatting with someone shitting on Twitter. It’s the goddamn future over here.

I’d wonder how in the world such a young kid could have made that much money. And did so without me noticing.

More seriously, assuming this happens well into the future, I’d congratulate him and just ask that he be sure to take good care of his mother when I die.

Some of column A, and some of column B. You are going to have tasks which need to get done, but you don’t really want to do. Do I want to wash the dishes? Honestly, no. It’s not something I enjoy doing. Do I need to wash the dishes? Yes, if I don’t we get ants in the kitchen, the dishes start to smell and we run out of clean dishes. There will be tasks which ate less time dependent and I can do something I feel like doing first. Maybe the chores I need to get done around the house are done for the day and I can spend a bit of time playing a video game.

Life isn’t all playtime and roses. Sometimes:

Kinda yes and kinda no. While the front end you’re using will necessarily request data from Twitter, which means there will be traffic generated, it’s bot traffic which is much less valuable.

But, as much as I agree with the “fuck Musk” sentiment, really it’s about your own well being. Twitter is a cesspit. Wallowing in a cesspit, whether physical or virtual, is bad for your health. Even if you aren’t in the official cesspit, just a pool filled with the same shit, it’s just as unhealthy.

Anything SharePoint.
So many companies end up using SharePoint for “knowledge management” not realizing they are dooming their knowledge to be lost in some byzantine hole of information where no one will ever be able to find or use it ever again. Worse, as more knowledge is yeeted into the pile, the search becomes better and better at presenting outdated, or irrelevant information. So, you will have new employees who find a process which is 5-10 years out of date, completely wrong, but it looks official and the links still work for some gods forsake reason. Of course, the right information is in SharePoint somewhere, but it’s probably locked behind a site with broken permissions, in a document library in a Word document which isn’t properly indexed and there’s 4 different versions of the same document with names like “New procedure_v3_DRAFT_bob’s edits.docx”, because no one understands how file versioning works.

“Now stop reading Twitter”.
If you’re using a front end, you’re still reading Twitter.

I’ve deleted my Twitter account

Now stop reading Twitter. You can’t fix folks who want to wallow misery.

Messing with DNS is how a PiHole works. You set the devices on your network to use the PiHole for DNS and it “blackholes” domains related to advertising and tracking. You can do something similar with any system acting as a DNS server on your network.

There is a reason I always say, “backslash, the one without the question mark”.

The just stopped working was the client stopped syncing?

The client doesn’t seem to detect new photos as they are created/taken. If I manually upload an image from my photos folder, it syncs just fine. Files in other folders seem to sync just fine. But, photos and videos just never even try to sync.

NextCloud decided to stop allow private made certificates with its client in 2025 and its what made me switch.

This hasn’t been an issue for me. I pay for a domain and have a certificate issued by Let’s Encrypt. The only certificate errors I get are when I refresh the certificate every 6 months, and that’s just the client asking me if I want to trust the new certificate.

Syncthing

I had looked into this a while back, but it seemed to be more of a point to point solution and not a client-server system. I was aiming to have an authoritative server with everything and clients (both phone and desktop) able to pull the needed/request files. I also like the ability to share via a web link when needed. Am I wrong in that understanding?

I currently use NextCloud, but I have been looking to move away from it. My main use case is for syncing photos and videos to the cloud from my phone (Android) and this used to work flawlessly. But, some time in early 2025, it just stopped working. I can still manually upload files and sync still works for other folders (e.g. Documents) just fine. But, photos and videos just won’t sync automatically. Not sure if there are other options which would work better, but NextCloud on Android just seems to be broke.

A former coworker of mine was basically pushed out of the company we worked for, despite having basically written most of the software stack. He started doing independent consultant work for the customers, as the company’s management was such a disaster that they were unable to support deployments. He operated under the company name “MMI”, which stood for “Me, Myself and I”. I’ve stolen this name to describe working for myself on more than one occasion.

You come from nothing, you’re going back to nothing. What have you lost?
Nothing!

It depends on the user(s). Which position do you naturally reach for first? That’s where the oldest stock goes, with newer stock “behind” that in descending order of age. You always want to rotate stock, such that the oldest stock gets used up first.

You literally say it yourself. Precedents are being revoked. This shouldn’t be possible by the same court.

Why not? You are essentially arguing that the courts should always be bound by their first decision.

We have balance of powers for a reason

You don’t seem to understand what that means. The balance of powers doctrine is about ensuring that no one branch of government has too much power. A single branch changing its mind has nothing to do with that. In fact, all three branches do this all the time. Presidents can issue Executive Orders and those can (and regularly are) overridden by new Presidents. Congress passes laws regularly and it’s rather common for new Congresses to change those laws. It makes no sense to say that the Courts must always be bound by the first decision to be made and never update those decisions based on new information or a changing in society.

it was pretty well decided on that things don’t get re-litigated

Have you read a history book? Things are re-litigated constantly. Something I specifically pointed out in my last comment.

exactly to stop what is currently happening from happening.

Quite the opposite, really. Re-litigation of issues is one of the ways in which issues actually get changed. Let’s take something like Roe v. Wade. That was not the first time an abortion ban was in front of the Supreme Court. In fact, they had just decided US v. Vuitch. That case effectively rules that DC could enact a ban on abortion. Under your theory, Roe couldn’t have happened. We could also just jump all the way back to Cruickshank (which I mentioned before) and say that the restrictions on the Federal Government in the Bill of Rights (specifically the 1st and 2nd amendments) do not restrict State Governments.

Honestly, it sounds like your real complaint is that precedents you like or agree with are being overturned. And that sucks, but Supreme Court precedents have never crystalized US law in the past. On the upshot, they won’t in the future either. The actions of this Supreme Court will only last as long as the Justices continue to agree with the decisions being made. And that is likely to change eventually. It just takes time and hard political work.

They already can be. There’s a few ways to do it, but all of them are slow, difficult and rely on achieving a level of political alignment which is not going to happen any time soon. And almost certainly not for the things you’re likely to want.

First off, Congress can just pass a law to change the current law. For most things, this works out well enough and this still happens from time to time. But, it’s much less durable than other methods. If the Supreme Court sees that law as violating the Constitution, they will strike it down and that ends that path to change.

Second, Congress and the States could amend the Constitution. The has happened 27 times in US History, but it’s never been a simple process. The Constitution is hard to amend and it requires a lot of consensus. Given the fractious nature of current politics and going by voting patters, the near perfect split between left vs right, I doubt we could even get an amendment passed which just said, “don’t kick puppies”.

Lastly, the States could just call a Constitutional Convention and pass whatever they want. This is a bad idea. It’s a really, really bad idea. The last time the States did this, they scrapped everything the previous Constitutional Convention had written and started from scratch. Maybe this would result in something better, but given whom our current president is, I’d be kinda afraid of giving any political body that sort of power right now.

Technically, there’s also always the “ammo box” solution to forcing change. But, history provides lost of examples of that going very, very poorly and almost none of it going well. Also, that process is only legal if you win; so, maybe let’s not go there.

This proposed amendment would be based on the ratification provision in the Constitution, which requires only three-quarters of the states to approve an amendment. However, this amendment would only serve to overturn Supreme Court rulings if three-quarters of the state supreme courts reject the ruling or issue a contrary ruling.

Ignoring the fact that this would require an amendment to the US Constitution to put in place, it’s an interesting idea. Though, it’s worth noting that this would have likely delayed a lot of social change in the US. The 20th Century saw a lot of landmark changes to the interpretation to the Constitution, not all of them widely popular at the time.

What would be the political and judicial consequences if this amendment were to take effect?

This would devolve a lot of power away from the Federal Government. Arguably, this would be more similar to the pre-20th Century state of affairs. Control of State Governments would be even more important to political parties and this would likely shift power even further towards small, less densely populated States. In short, I’d bet on it causing a significant conservative shift in US law. Currently, the GOP hold 23 State Government trifectas (control of all legislative branches), and the DNC 16. The other 11 States are split. [source]. While such control does not guarantee control of State Supreme Courts (e.g. Virginia’s Supreme Court is still conservative), it is an indicator. But, I’d bet on a cumulative court decision being much closer to the current Supreme Court than many folks here would want.

The Supreme Court just interprets the laws as “unconstitutional” no matter how clearly laid out they are.

The US Constitution is considered the Supreme Law. If there is a conflict between the Constitution and any State or Federal law, the law in the Constitution wins. And the Constitution can be updated via amendments. We’ve done this 27 times, though the 18th Amendment was canceled by the 21st Amendment, so those two are a bit of a wash. Part of the Supreme Court’s job (kinda made up by the SC itself) is to interpret the law and decide if a conflict exists and how that conflict should be resolved. This is called Judaical Review.

And, this power ultimately makes sense in the context of the US Constitution. Consider for a moment that Congress “clearly laid out” a law which made supporting the other political party illegal (for whatever version of “other political party” strikes your fancy). This sort of law would be incredibly anti-democratic. It’s also a pretty clear violation of the First Amendment. But, who gets to decide that? If it’s just up to Congress, and they are the ones passing the law, that seems a pretty poor way to adjudicate it. Maybe the President gets to decide. And the President might do just that by vetoing it. But, it’s likely that a President is going to sign it, if he’s of the same party. That only leaves two options, we all start shooting at each other every time we feel the Constitution has been violated, or the last branch of the Federal Government steps in and makes the call. While certainly not non-partisan, they are somewhat removed from the political process and are more likely to make rational, long-term decisions. And it’s a damn sight better than the “shoot each other” option.

In practice, this has held up reasonably well. The main problem is that the early lawmakers in the US were kinda shit at their job. The early Amendments to the US Constitution are vague and leave a lot of room for interpretation. The result is that those interpretations have changed over time and as different factions have gained more influence over the Supreme Court. And given that the Justices on the Supreme Court serve for life (barring impeachment), those shifts can be slow and long lasting.

There is also the issue of implied rights and what exactly those are. Consider everyone’s favorite, a “Right to Life”. What is it, and where does it exist in the US Constitution? The definition for it is kinda fuzzy in US Federal law partly because it doesn’t explicitly exist in the US Constitution. There is the 9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Well great, but um, what are those rights? And who gets to decide? Again, we have to sort out a system for that, and the best we’ve come up with to date is the Supreme Court. Hardly a perfect solution, but we haven’t come up with anything better yet. This is also why a lot of courts look to the writings of the Founders, especially the Federalist Papers. Trying to divine what those “other rights” are is hard and the courts try to base their decisions on some sort of textual evidence or precedent. But again, these interpretations are not universal and are subject to change as both society and the make up of the court changes.

So no, “passing of laws doesn’t matter anymore, and neither does precedent” is incorrect. Passing laws matters, but those laws need to comply with the current interpretation of the Constitution and it’s amendments. And precedent matters in so much as the interpretations of the Constitution haven’t changed. The issue is that the current make up of the court has a very right-wing view. So, previous precedents (which were more left-wing) are being revoked. That anyone is surprised by this is kinda dumb. In fact The early and mid-20th century saw the Supreme Court taking a much more left-wing interpretation of the Constitution, which was a departure from prior generations. Decisions such as Tennessee v. Scopes (Scopes Monkey Trial) and Roe v. Wade were major departures from previous precedent. Many of us grew up with those decisions in place and took for granted that they were “settled”. But, they really weren’t. They were Supreme Court decisions which could be reversed by newer Supreme Court decisions.

And while it sucks when that happens to decisions we like, it’s also been useful when it’s gone the other way. In US v. Cruikshank, the Supreme Court decided that the rights enumerated in the US Constitution did NOT bind the States. Specifically, that States were not bound by the 1st or 2nd Amendments and it also greatly limited the applicability of the 14th Amendment. Ultimately, this precedent would be rolled back by later decisions and Incorporation slowly redefined the relationship between the Federal Constitution and State governments.

Ultimately, law is a messy thing. And it’s very much the outcome of a political process which is subject to people of all stripes, including those whose opinions and beliefs will be hostile and toxic to your own. It’s a pretty terrible way to decide laws, but it’s better than most everything else we’ve tried in history.