Show 'em, that’ll teach these nasty fanboys! Reads like writing that got you a big dopamine rush.

I agree, commenting “Use Firefox!!!1!11” on every post remotely related to (other) browsers doesn’t help anybody, just like commenting “Use Linux!!!1!11” on every post about a vulnerability in Windows doesn’t contribute anything meaningful at all.

Look, I also disagree with what Mozilla is doing here and yes, they 100% deserve the flak they are getting for it. But - like most things in life - it’s not black and white. Firefox could still be less intrusive to your privacy than Chrome (I’m not saying it necessarily is, but it could be that way). A different example: your mail provider could track every time you login to your account, or it could analyze and track the content of every email you receive. One is clearly worse than the other, right?

Which browser(s) do you recommend/use?

There is no definitive roadmap.

Didn’t happen again so far, so I didn’t investigate further. The qcode display on my mainboard displayed an error code I think.

Had that happen yesterday for the first time with a similar (AMD CPU and GPU) setup.

How do you not do that? It’s all in your local network, how would it not work offline…?

Considering Intel is behind TSMC as well, China might be quite close to Intel then.

More than enough for Apple to bend to pretty much everything the Chinese government is asking for.

That’s the way the Fediverse works. When you post a comment, an update is distributed with your comment. Once you delete it, an update is distributed that you deleted your comment. Lemmy then still shows that there was a comment but it has been deleted. Federation delays could mean that they didn’t see your comment as deleted instantly. In theory, a Fediverse instance could also just ignore the deletion update and keep showing the deleted comment.

The article is from June 17th.

I’m waiting to see how DeepComputing’s RISC-V mainboard for the Framework turns out. I’m aware that this is very much a development platform and far from an actual end-user product, but if the price is right, I might jump in to experiment.

What I mean by that is that they will take a huge disservice to their customers over a slight financial inconvenience (packaging and validating an existing fix for different CPU series with the same architecture).

I don’t classify fixing critical vulnerabilities from products as recent as the last decade as “goodwill”, that’s just what I’d expect to receive as a customer: a working product with no known vulnerabilities left open. I could’ve bought a Ryzen 3000 CPU (maybe as part of cheap office PCs or whatever) a few days ago, only to now know they have this severe vulnerability with the label WONTFIX on it. And even if I bought it 5 years ago: a fix exists, port it over!

I know some people say it’s not that critical of a bug because an attacker needs kernel access, but it’s a convenient part of a vulnerability chain for an attacker that once exploited is almost impossible to detect and remove.

That’s so stupid, also because they have fixes for Zen and Zen 2 based Epyc CPUs available.

Intel vs. AMD isn’t “bad guys” vs. “good guys”. Either company will take every opportunity to screw their customers over. Sure, “don’t buy Intel” holds true for 13th and 14th gen Core CPUs specifically, but other than that it’s more of a pick your poison.

Was gonna ask, never heard of anyone.

Temporarily connect the new drives via USB enclosures and clone the data via ZFS snapshots.

Pretty much any laptop with a mobile RTX 4090 and a removable wifi card then. Choose based on desired weight and size class I guess.

BorgBase allows for append-only backups.

Is your typical noise floor even under 20 dB? HDDs are also a lot louder than 5-10 dB, and manufacturers usually list dBA in their spec sheets, not dB.

How anyone could prefer Windows to Linux is truly a mystery to me.

I doubt most people would base their decision solely on the update experience.

That being said when I used Windows regularly up to the end of last year, installing updates wasn’t really a problem or even something I really noticed. It didn’t really nag me to restart or whatever and just did its thing when I shut the computer down, taking half a minute longer every now and then - but I don’t care because I just wanted to shut down anyway.

Fedora (and I’m sure more distros) apply updates on restart by default if you update via GUI (“Software” in GNOME, “Discover” in KDE). This also requires a “double restart” (I noticed it because you also have to enter your LUKS passphrase twice). Sure, you can update packages in-place, but depending on the update (not just the kernel) this can cause issues/anomalies with the running system. I’ve had some Mesa updates without a restart cause games to stop working or misbehave, also video decoding.

I have yet to see a good implementation of Secure Boot, and that’s just from a user interface standpoint.

How can I check which keys are installed in the EFI/BIOS UI? And then delete a specific key? I only ever saw options like “reset to factory settings”.

Factory settings are just Microsoft’s keys most of the time, and often there’s no way to delete/not trust Microsoft’s keys.

The whole system is way too intransparent. May as well turn it off.

Same (in some situations). I feel like searching for “how to do X?”, where X is a simple problem or knowledge, more often than not the classic search results are linking to articles that are way too long and talk around the solution way too much before actually getting to it (if at all).

Sure, I don’t trust the AI responses for critical stuff, but I honestly rarely trust a random blog article either.