click170

Some of the obstacles really hit you when your working with different systems, if you connect the same systems then just mirror the config but when each end uses different terminology it can get confusing unless you know what you're doing. I don't think I'd agree that it's extremely difficult but it's nontrivial sometimes.

Not if I can spoof my IP6 address as easily as I can spoof an IP4 one, nope.

Merely because they're big enough to throw their clout around, which could be a good thing or bad thing depending on how you view it.

Could also be Apple, or Amazon, or maybe Netflix. Any large enough company really.

I feel the same way, but I worry that ISPs won't ever change unless they're forced to. I'm starting to wonder if Google should just stop accepting (or start delaying?) traffic to or from ISPs that allow spoofed traffic. I mean it doesn't feel hard to test.

On the one hand I already avoid Google because they're getting uncomfortably large, but on the other hand I feel like it's going to take a company of Google's size to take a stand, or regulatory changes, before anything will change for the better here.

It worked for improving the SSL situation and for distrusting bad CAs, didn't it? Non-rhetorical question, it feels like it did to me.

This is exactly why I don't bother with forums controlled by the company I wish to raise a grievance about. Just go air your complaint on Reddit or something they don't control, it's not worth your time complaining to their forums.

That's pretty disingenuous though, given that FB and Google both track you across the net whether you have an account with them or not. Logging out of your account doesn't stop them or increase the difficulty of them tracking you, or associating that trail with you.

This is really cool and reminds me a bit of Mandos which does full disk encryption on headless servers using a network host.

The Readme didn't mention, can this be configured to SMS me when an encryption key is handed out?

> The Sansa line at one point had (or still has) the same audio chip as the iPod (Classic), is cheaper, and is super well reviewed. I think people interested in dedicated players have moved onto that.

This looks promising on the face of it but is missing a key killer-feature IMO. The reason I still use an iPod for my MP3s is for a specific feature in iTunes that I've not yet found elsewhere, I forget the name they use but I call them dynamic playlists.

Most of my playlists generate themselves based on DateAdded, LastPlayed, LastSkipped, Rating, Tags and other attributes. When I add a song I give it some tags and sync my iPod, and then it will over time and after a few syncs, end up in other playlists based on how often I play it and what rating I give it. It's a feature that I very much enjoy, and feels like a significant step up from manually managing playlists. I wish I had the same for my Movie library.

I've seriously been considering building my own gizmo with a Raspberry pi, an LCD screen and some scripts but that's rather unappealing aesthetically.

Has anyone got an equivalent to dynamic libraries + mp3 players working without iTunes? The crux seems to be that the mp3 player needs to keep a log of what's played and when and needs to support ratings, even if the player itself doesn't update the playlists until it's synced. I'm not even huge on sound quality or big on Apple products, it's just the features I like I can't find elsewhere.

Maybe they can reinvest some of that money and figure out how to not spam me for things I've already pre-ordered from Amazon.

Case in point, Super Mario Odyssey. Preordered from Amazon, and they've been sending me nonstop emails to try and sell me additional copies ever since.

At least their marketing emails tend to come from a different source from tracking notification emails so you can filter them with ease.

I agree with your intention, but I worry about the consequences: One thing worse than a group of companies controlling credit ratings is one company having a monopoly on controlling credit ratings and being "too big to fail".

What exactly is the best case scenario here I wonder? More credit rating companies equals more competition but greater attack surface and chance of breach, but fewer companies approaches a monopoly situation which isn't good for consumers either. This feels like a lose-lose...

To add to that, the desktop site works* with javascript disabled, is faster that way, and has much fewer ads, but the mobile site doesn't even load under that condition.

Edit: * - works in a read-only sense, you have to turn JS on to comment or expand comments.

First off this is partly a self fullfilling prophecy: I'm increasingly less likely to buy one the longer it takes them to update it.

Also, they've effectively pushed me to other vendors for small form factor PC's now. I needed a small form factor HTPC and was ready to just casually buy a Mini, until I saw they hadnt updated it in years. I switched to a smaller and cheaper chromebox which I put Linux on, and I won't be going back to Mac minis now because I found a better cheaper solution.

On the on hand, thanks apple, on the other theyre doing it to themselves from my perspective.

This whole thing seems to stem from the authors inability to reproduce and understand the problem.

Has anyone submitted a test case demonstrating the problem? I don't see one linked in the comments. It may also help to explain how you deploy and why you do it that way, not everyone does this as their day job so some perspective can be enlightening.

Closing an issue like this that is ostensibly a problem for a lot of people and projects isn't good etiquette. At the same time, Foss authors dont owe us or anyone else anything. The least we can do is help them reproduce the issue when they have trouble doing it themselves. Seems like failures on both sides here to me.

Edit: I also don't want to criticize the author for not pushing a patch they don't understand. I wouldnt merge a patch if I didn't understand the problem it was solving, but I would ask for details and a test case to understand it better instead of closing the ticket.

I'm not arguing with your logic, but I the user searched for and found/installed the app/service, it's disappointing and disheartening to not be trusted to choose my own preferences and explore the options in said app/service.