sulfidedisburseangledafternoontipper

Oh, I’d count on the latter rather than the former, but it’s still a very abnormal situation. Do I expect the system to do literally anything other than protect its continued existence? Absolutely not.

TBF, that is a pretty wild thing to include in a legal brief. It sounds benign and frankly pretty mild compared to the way any cogent and remotely attentive to what’s happening in the world. But, for anyone who has worked closely with the courts, it is a wild thing to include in a filing.

To put things in perspective, anyone who has had dealings with the police or worked in the legal system (or just reads anything other than fox news) know that police regularly lie in order to get convictions. Despite this, no attorney is going to attack the general credibility of the police in a criminal proceeding. Even in areas where there have been numerous proven cases of police misconduct, they enjoy an assumption of truth and respect in the courts.

The fact that so many courts have found the administration to be acting out of malice and that litigants believe that pointing this out will work to their favor is kind of wild. It shouldn’t be, but it is. I hope that if we somehow dislodge these fascists from our government the courts don’t forget that the systems they’re using were not put in place in January, 2025 and won’t have disappeared when the figureheads have been replaced.

I’ll still respond for the sake of anyone else reading this. What I used was an analogy. I’m pointing out that you were dismissing the potential for moral objections to the use of AI. That is not the same as equating, but you probably know that.

You, like, other AI boosters are unable to fathom that folks’ moral objections are both truly held and legitimate so you feign ignorance and shut down any critique by simultaneously clutching pearls and claiming that the thing we find morally repugnant is “inevitable.” Happy to avoid future interactions. ❤

Totally. Why should anyone care about whether their clothes were made by slaves or prisoners or children? Only the tightness of the stitching and fabric is a valid measure of clothing’s quality. 🙄

I fucking hope they keep it in red state cities. More cops, more AI, more surveillance does fuck all to actually help anyone (who isn’t either a cop or part of the epstein class). You’ll note there’s a long list of things that money can be spent on, but I guarantee you that the vast, vast majority of those funds will go to more gestapo and more surveillance.

On the bright side, $300M is basically nothing on the scale of this country, so really, this is only news to axon, flock, motorolla, and other fasc-tech companies.

I’m aware of this (that’s why I described a potential breach as Jellyfin -> LXC escape). What it does provide me is a static IP to point my domain at that I don’t have to worry about updating via whatever DDNS service and that isn’t tied to my home address. That and the wireguard tunnel gives me plausible deniability should my ISP ever decide to enforce its rules against hosting servers. 😀

I have a very cheap ($11/yr) us-based vps through racknerd I got via low end box. I’ve got 12 users but only 5 really active ones and I’ve never come close to hitting the 1tb transfer. I serve several services through that one vps (all just reverse proxy to my homelab).

I did just pick up another u.s. based vps through low end box the other day- $12/yr and unmetered Gbps. 1 CPU only, but a reverse proxy doesn’t need a lot of compute. :)

Depends on what you mean by “secure.” My personal setup is Jellyfin LXC on proxmox --> Wireguard to VPS -> Nginx reverse proxy on VPS.

This setup relies somewhat on Jellyfin’s auth, but I’m comfortable with that risk. The LXC is blocked from sending local traffic on my network by firewall rules. Yes, someone could exploit a vulnerability in Jellyfin (though looking through the CVEs I’m not overly worried about that), then escape the LXC and fuck with my server. But that’s a lot of work for no profit.

For more protection (in sense of reducing traffic that even interacts with your server), I’d recommend getting a wildcard cert for the domain so that the actual subdomain jellyfin is on is undisclosed to anyone not using your service.

Security isn’t about making everything impregnable, it’s about making attacks more trouble than they’re worth. Otherwise, we’d all live in fortified bunkers surrounded by landmines. 🙃

Navidrome. It’s lightweight and works with any subsonic app.

There are ways to make that irrelevant. I use a cheap vps and just have it funnel raw traffic for the ports I need to my home server via wireguard. All my SSL certs live on my machine and the VPS can’t see any of the traffic contents. I suppose they could redirect traffic elsewhere or start serving whatever on that domain, but I would know immediately and there are some limits to my paranoia.

That is… incorrect for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which is the following copyright notice given by the EFF themselves:

Tell me you don’t know who the Luddites were without telling me you don’t know who the Luddites were.

I guess what I’m saying is that the immunity thing is not the thing to be upset about here. Agree 100% that no reasonable person would expect her to speak truthfully, but that would be the case with or without immunity.

Folks aren’t going to like hearing this, but there’s nothing untoward or unreasonable about her demanding immunity before testifying. Any lawyer would advise any person in a similar situation to either demand immunity or to avail themselves of their right against self-incrimination. This is literally the foundation of due process and if you don’t care about that for “monsters,” then you don’t really care about it for anyone because it’s real easy for the state/media to make anyone a monster. Immunity isn’t even necessarily a good thing for the person being questioned (prosecutors can non-consensually “immunize” an unwilling witness to force their testimony, opening the witness up to theoretically unlimited contempt penalties for failure to testify).

What is untoward is the DOJ “interviewing” her behind closed doors, particularly when their guy has pardon power and they’ve refused to release the docs they have.

Maxwell is, to put it offensively mildly, a bad guy in this story, but she’s not the bad guy. For every person she trafficked, there is a rich predator who continues to pay no price whatsoever. I have no hopes that she’ll decide to “do the right thing” out of any sense of morality. I do, however, have a modicum of hope that she’ll be so bitter about being the only person punished that she goes scorched earth in her testimony.