If you guessed it right, your inflexible implementation becomes an advantage against other inflexible implementations.

There, I generated an AGI (actual grumpy ignoramus) summary for y’all.

A naive answer:

Replace “Lemmy” with a “Nazi manufactured gun”.

A less naive answer:

Consider various meanings “use” takes in your question and decide accordingly.

First, Omarchy doesn’t need funding or partners. It’s backed by a Nazi multimillionaire.

Second, the whole apolitical argument is bullshit. Everything is political. Support for a distro that doesn’t really need support by nature of being a child of a Nazi multimillionaire is a support for that Nazi multimillionaire.

“We didn’t support them because of that” means nothing. The support still sends a message. Just like artist loses control over interpretation of their art the moment they release it, people lose control over interpretation of their actions the moment they act. Does it sound fair? Maybe not, but it’s how reality works.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/12/sweden-set-to-rent-cells-in-estonian-jails-as-it-runs-out-of-room-for-its-prisoners

Estonia is not the target of comparison here.

PS: When you read „country A is renting prisons in country B”, your first reaction should be „what the fuck is going on in country A”, not „what’s wrong with prisons in country B”. The fact that it wasn’t tells a lot about your character.

They are too busy renting prisons in Estonia.

It did solve my impostor syndrome though. Turns out a bunch of people I saw to be my betters were faking it all along.

I’d probably add that for something like nextcloud granted scopes can be an „orthogonal”–for the lack of a better word–subset of requested scopes.

The set of requestable scopes has to be defined by the system itself, not its specific configuration. E.g. „files:manage”, „talk:manage”, „mail:read” are all general capabilities the system offers.

However, as a user I can have a local configuration that adds granularity to the grants I issue. E.g.: „files:manage in specific folders” or „mail:read for specific domains or groups only” are user trust statements that fit into the capability matrix but add an additional and preferably invisible layer of access control.

It’s a fairly rare feature in the wild and is a potential UX pitfall, but it can be useful as an advanced option on the grant page, or as a separate access control for issued grants.

https://oauth.net/articles/authentication/

That aside, why is nextcloud asking for scopes from remote API in the diagram? What is drawn on the diagram has little to do with OAuth scopes, but rather looks like an attempt to wrap ACL repository access into a new vocabulary.

Scopes issued by the OAuth authorization server can be hidden entirely. The issuer doesn’t hold any obligation to share them with authorized party since they are dedicated for internal use and can be propagated via invisible or opaque means.

I really can’t figure out what’s going on with that diagram.

Are you stupid or are you paid? „Let them have land” is literally the simplest most retarded solution, yet you dare use that descriptor against something else.

Ceding land to Russia doesn’t stop people from dying. Never did, never will do.

I get it, your sorry pathetic ass is tired of war that you’re not affected by. You’d rather sweep a few million lives under the rug and call it peace.

Well, your voice belongs under that very rug.

Following years of under-investment and despite increasing ticket prices, DB continues to make annual losses.

Ah, so nothing’s gonna change.

Russian allies also don’t give a fuck about red lines.

Whereas Ukraine’s allies were so unwilling to commit, that the war that could’ve been finished in the first year is increasingly likely to transition into EU invasion.

Would? They already do.

That’s a bit too humane for tankies. I’d rather expect „she’s a bitch and deserves to die” from the get go.

Yeah, had to dive in myself.

The answer is no, they can’t. You need to pass /dev/kvm and /dev/net/tun in a composefile for a reason.

There’s no „windows in docker”, but rather „handy windows vm orchestrator with nice UI in a container”. A bit of a mouthful.

Taganrog, Kuban, Green and Yellow Klyns, Kursk…

If we start to enumerate, Russia has a lot of territories they’ve ethnically cleansed to call them „historically Russian territories”.

My viewing history can legally drink in US in a year. What do you mean „guess”?

Fraction of truth is the best lie, and you seem to have mastered it.

Live action at that

• ssh to remote, forwarding some remote port to your local ssh port (-R)
• ssh from remote through the exposed port, starting socks proxy in the process (-D)
• use socks proxy explicitly or find some tool that can route the traffic into it

Similar approach can be used to establish VPN tunnel with no encryption (ssh already provides that), routing everything but your ssh connection through it.

• ssh to remote, reverse forwarding your VPN-over-tcp server’s listening port
• establish vpn connection on remote, route everything but your ssh connection through the newly established interface

It will be wasteful, but it will work.

It wasn’t supposed to be the revolution, it was sold like it was.

As a revolution, it relies on infinite applicability of Moore’s law to storage medium. In other words, it relies on infinite growth. It never left the square one.