I tried to upvote this comment:
Got a page that simply said “Error”. That’s it. Not internal server error or a 500 error.. just “error”. Thought it’s worth mention since it’s possibly the first time I've seen such a generic and info-deprived error msg.
The readme talks about docker. I’m not a docker user. I did a git clone
when I was on a decent connection. ATM I’m not on a decent connection. The releases page lacks file sizes. And MS Github conceals the size:
curl -LI 'https://github.com/Xyphyn/photon/archive/refs/tags/v1.31.2-fix.1.tar.gz' | grep -i 'content-length'
output:
content-length: 0
So instead of fetching the tarball of unknown size, I need to know how to build either the app or the tarball from the cloned repo. Is that documented anywhere?
I often save websites to my local drive when collecting evidence that might later need to be presented in court. But of course there problems with that because I could trivially make alterations at will. And some websites give me different treatment based on my IP address. So I got in the habit of using web.archive.org/save/$targetsite
to get a third party snapshot. That’s no longer working. It seems archive.org has cut off that service due to popular demand, which apparently outstrips their resources.
Are there more reliable alternatives? I’m aware of archive.ph
but that’s a non-starter (Cloudflare).
In the 1990s there was a service that would email you a webpage. Would love to an out-of-band mechanism like that since email has come to carry some legal weight and meets standards of evidence in some countries (strangely enough).
https://fedia.io/m/fedia/t/1100295/Onion-hosts-are-not-recognized-as-URLs-and-thus-get
As the linked post demonstrates, if you enter a link like this:...
https://fedia.io/m/emailprivacy/t/1098758/Email-providers-that-support-at-onion-email-addresses
There are very few onion email providers. I’m hoping to crowd-source more options. These are the onion email providers I am aware of:...
I often supply documents as evidence to regulators (e.g. GDPR regulators). A document is normally in A4 format and I digitally superimpose that onto an A4 page. Thus generally without shrinking or expanding.
I label it by printing “exhibit A”, “bewijsstuk A”, or “pièce A” in the topmost rightmost corner at a 45° angle and give a small margin to avoid unprintable areas. I do that on every single page. If it would overlap something, I shift it down to avoid overlap. It seems to do the job well but a regulator once requested that I resubmit the evidence without my markups.
So apparently they don’t like my style. Maybe they wonder if I could be making more material alterations. What is the normal convention in the legal industry? These evidence submissions are not for a court process but they always have potential to end up in court in the future.
I have some ideas:
Any other ideas?
Decisions about who to federate with can be so much more interesting than just talking specifically about Meta. And from where I sit, this mag is dead due to being so narrowly focused. (edit: moving to another node… that explains it).
Consider that there are many nodes that are centralised and go against many digital rights values. E.g. all Cloudflare nodes are centralised and expose us all to corporate greed, manipulation, exclusion, and privacy abuses.
I propose renaming to something like “DefederateTechGiants” or “DefederateTechnoFeudalism”.
https://fedia.io/m/french@sopuli.xyz/t/1066944/Translation-help-wanted-on-telecom-law
I would like to understand this paragraph:...
I would like to understand this paragraph:
§ 2. Lorsque (un opérateur d'un [¹ réseau public de communications électroniques]¹) a l'intention d'établir des câbles, lignes aériennes et équipements connexes, de les enlever ou d'y exécuter des travaux, elle tend à rechercher un accord quant à l'endroit et la méthode d'exécution des travaux, avec la personne dont la propriété sert d'appui, est franchie ou traversée.
Argos Translate yields:
§ 2. When (an operator of a [¹ public electronic communications network]¹) intends to establish cables, airlines and related equipment, to remove or perform work therein, it tends to seek an agreement on the location and method of carrying out work, with the person whose property serves as a support, is crossed or crossed.
I think tends is a false friend here because it seems unlikely in this context. A commercial machine translation yields:
§ 2. When (an operator of a [¹ public electronic communications network]¹) intends to establish, remove or carry out work on cables, overhead lines and related equipment, it shall seek agreement as to the location and method of carrying out the work with the person whose property is used as support, is crossed or is being traversed.
Sounds more accurate. I’m disappointed that there seems to be no requirement that the telecom company obtain consent from property owners. Is that correct? The telecom operator does not need consent on whether to use someone’s private property, only consent on how they deploy the cables?
@ciferecaNinjo
@fedia.io