Pika

Yes, they are essentially file snapshots. Shadow copies in a Microsoft environment at least are basically file history without using file history. So when you modify a file when it’s enabled, it makes a copy of the last version of the file.

But since it’s not meant to be a actual backup solution, it’s meant to be on a file-by-file basis. I think that means they had to go through and manual restore n a file by file basis

I wouldn’t want one, I didn’t become a pilot for a reason, no interest in personal or commercial flight

Honestly, even in a competent administration, this scares me because of the fact that it’s bypassing the certification process altogether. We’ve already seen the danger caused with certified aircrafts, and now you’re telling me you want to bypass the certification process altogether.

oh God, please no. We can’t even manage driving on one-way roads and you want us to take to the skies as well.

I’m all for a better way of transporting that might actually get rid of our gridlock areas, but I feel like allowing unlicensed, uncertified VTOLs taxis into our already congested transportation areas is not the solution to this problem.

Not that this has ever stopped them before, but I would be interested on their attempt at remaining compliant with data protection laws as I feel like locking GDPR right to be forgotten behind a facial ID scan would be seen as an unneeded blocker in order to delete your account.

I run Debian 13 and I will use apt repositories whenever possible and I avoid flatpak with a passion.

My flowchart is:

1. App Image if the application supports auto updating or if it’s a temperary app
2. Apt repository
3. Deb file
4. App Image (when previous didn’t apply)
5. Source
6. Flatpak

My main reasoning for it is strictly ease of use. I find flatpaks while I’m sure makes it easier on the developers making it to be super bloaty and take up more system resources, While causing more restrictions and annoyances during configuration due to their enhanced security setup.

The only time I really don’t use a repo if it’s available is if the program itself updates on its own, or updates super frequently such as Discord, which I got annoyed enough at that I had to make my own update script that to check if there’s an update and then auto update it, because I got sick of the Discord has an update message every other day.

I’m all some Debian dereritive, whether it’s Q4OS or just Debian,

my apologies, apperently I need to clarify. It’s because that’s a big overstep. There is a big difference between telling the DoD we don’t want to do buisness with you, to telling the DoT you don’t want to do buisness with them. Refusing buisness from the DoD or the Pentagon shouldn’t impact your ability to do buisness with the other branches. It’s abuse of position.

This isn’t “oh my company doesn’t want to do buisness because you won’t agree to give us the keys” this is a “ok so myself and my parent company along with any affiliates with us are not going to be doing buisness with you for not giving us the keys to the kingdom.”

That’s my mentality of it anyway, I don’t think it violates the first amendment but, but I still don’t think it’s right.

I don’t agree that the government should be able to do what they’re doing regarding the company, but I don’t understand how it’s a violation of free speech.

It seems they’re trying to clarify that AI projects are a creative project used for expression of motion. And that seems like a stretch to me? I don’t know, I don’t fully understand it.

Like I agree that they were within their rights to refuse to do business with the US government, and I don’t agree that the response to them refusing it should be the US government blacklist their company for contracts. But I don’t see how those factors make it a violation of the First Amendment.

Samsung uses a pretty standard factory reset procedure unfortunately. The A50 should be following the same reset sequence.

The reset sequence requires the phone being powered completely off, and then volume up and power on being held during the power on process. This will open the recovery/boot menu for the device. On this menu she would then have to use the volume keys to accidentally select the erase data partition or factory data wipe option, and then also confirm that same option to actually have it wipe.

The fact that she’s managed to do it 3 times now is actually impressive in a twisted way since there is like 5 separate options on that boot menu and factory data wipe isn’t until like the 4th or 5th down, and the default option on that menu is wisely reboot.

I can’t really give you a very good alternative because that same process is usually fairly universal across all android devices. Outside of corporate controlled devices or custom implementations, most are going to use the hold volume up to access recovery menu shortcut which will allow for a factory reset.

I would like to know the percentage between if they break the law and regardless if they break the law

I was meaning more of their Android by default phones, like most retailers are going to only sell the android version

they specify the grapheneos devices so I’m assuming they have a dedicated graphene OS product line.

is this only on their graphine devices? or are they leaving their android stock devices unlockable as well

deleted by creator

I feel like it’s mostly temperature. I expect that they want to continue using untreated water to be able to have cooler temperature. That way they’re not having to spend money and time cooling their coolant down.

That’s my expectation anyway.

Reading the datasheet that someone else posted earlier on, it seems like that’s the case while they’re going to be doing temperature control. They’re making sure that the temperature stays within the criteria that they currently are required to do. And as such, means that they’re not having too cool it as much.

I lack the use case for this service but, it looks good on paper. Nice!

If I understand the project right, this would be a great opening for non-profit communities to make a page for the town and add the services, instead of the typical static pages

Basically many domain providers will hold onto domains for a little while after it expires.

Some like namecheap also advertise the domain names to peddle-man companies that will somehow buy temporary access to the domain after your extortion recall window expires.

To continue the namecheap example, when your namecheap domain expires, it gives you a lapse window where you can pay like double the cost of the domain renewal to reclaim it. If you don’t reclaim it during that window they give it to a middleman whom will somehow buy a 2 or 3 months domain lease for it. They will put it on a “site for sale” broker page and will charge you easily 100x what you paid for the domain if you wanted it back.

I would recommend just keep checking on it every few days to see if it gets released.

I have the docket link which is here but its a mess because the original case was dismissed back in 2021, but then amended and merged to contain a larger case.

I used to have the actual document number somewhere if i can find it I will let you know as well. Sadly when the case started getting media attention valve started filing for seal motions on newer evidence, but I don’t /think/ they retroactively sealed anything.

The case is well worth a read, the intent on it is of course valves potential monopoly on video game storefront but it goes into detail about other providers as well. It aims to focus on the valve 30% cut system they use and whether valve uses their market position to abuse or not. I don’t personally think they do, because I feel their choices are fair in a business mentality, but it’s cool reading about others POV’s on it.

The Wolfire versus Valve antitrust case.

They submitted evidence of email chains from Valve customer support stating that they want Valve to have the best deal available and that they will not choose to do business with companies that do not give them the best deal.

On top of that, they also went on record stating that the steam product key page under the Steamworks area is meant to be intended for all products on Steam, not just keys.

It’s a textbook example of, hey look, this is our policy that’s written down, but we don’t actually follow it.

I just want to add in that what Valve has as official policy and what they actually practice differ in this case. Because yes, their policy states it’s for keys only. However, they have admitted in court that if the publisher has it as a cheaper price elsewhere, they will delist your game