11·
10 days agodeleted by creator
modem_down
- 9 Posts
- 16 Comments
Joined 1 month ago
Cake day: July 23rd, 2026
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
Cost-benefit is the likely reason.
For comparison: the UK initially concluded the cost-benefit ratio was in favour of girls-only HPV vaccination, but IIUC updated this assessment and offered it to boys too after a public campaign by Jaime Winstone.
1·11 days agoSorry, I’m not sure how to bypass that. Maybe disable JavaScript or try Reading Mode?
It’s a good article. However, it has at least one massive oversight: the NYT should have included Trump’s promise to end the Russian invasion of #Ukraine “on day one”.
A chart showing the cumulative loss of life since then would be sobering indeed.
Maybe I’m having a brainfart, but what’s wrong with the headline?
I suggest 3 separate fins, in grooves. Stronger, and won’t wobble when standing on the fins.
Your rocket’s nosecone looks very sharp/pointy. Please round off that and the fin tips. Toddlers can be clumsy; eyes are irreplaceable!
it’d be like saying we should disarm Ukraine, 'cause then Russia doesn’t have a reason to invade them
Putin’s All-Russia People’s Front’s policies toward Ukraine have many similarities to Netanyahu’s Likud party’s policies toward Gaza. Both sets of policies are tragic, causing many innocent people’s deaths.
Nevertheless, Ukraine and Gaza are different enough for one to reasonably reach different conclusions about how best peace can be achieved in each place:
- Ukraine’s weapons are protecting Ukraine against Russian attacks and invasion attempts. Therefore, it is in Ukraine’s interests to have them. Hamas’s weapons are not protecting Gaza against Israeli attacks or invasion. There is no obvious benefit from Hamas having them.
- Servant of the People, and Ukraine, do recognise Russia, and have not seriously proposed eliminating it. Hamas does not officially recognise Israel, and has seriously proposed eliminating it.
- Argentina, Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Honduras, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, Paraguay, Philippines, Switzerland, Trinidad and Tobago, the UK, the USA, the EU, and the Organization of American States, all designate Hamas a terrorist organisation. This reduces the aid Gaza receives. They seem unlikely to reverse the designation unless Hamas disarms. None of them designate Servant of the People, or Ukraine, a terrorist organisation.
Those points lead me to believe Hamas should disarm.
I also believe countries giving aid to Israel should make it formally contingent on Israel withdrawing from Gaza and the West Bank, to pre-1967 borders, and recognising Palestinian statehood. However, it looks like the US is going to stop aid to Israel regardless.
Trust isn’t really the point. Everyone knows Israel and Hamas don’t trust each other. I’m more concerned with whether the violent conflict can be reduced, and a stable peace achieved.
Are Hamas’s arms doing Gaza any favours? Not that I can see.
AFAICT, if Hamas disarmed:
- Israel’s only(?) excuse for mass military action in Gaza would disappear.
- International support (already shaky) for Israeli military presence in Gaza would decrease.
- One or more of Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Honduras, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, Paraguay, Trinidad and Tobago, the United Kingdom, the United States, or the European Union might end their designation of Hamas as a terrorist organisation, which could in turn increase the aid and other international support available to Gaza.
If you think I’m wrong, I’d be glad to know why.
Terrorism arises in defense to oppression.
Technical point: that isn’t exhaustively true. Terrorism can be, and sometimes is, committed against vulnerable parties by more privileged ones.
3·29 days agoIf it’s a server for self hosting you definitely don’t want anything that requires interaction at boot.
Depends on use-case. If you only plan to boot it when you’re physically present, it’s fine.
i believe a much better secure layer is something similar to what Novacustoms, Purism attempt to do: verify if somebody else not you try to access the laptop.
You’re thinking of Heads, which I agree is ideal for supported motherboards.
tang
Thanks. TIL about Clevis/Tang.
Yes. Here are some common self-hosting scenarios:
- Home server containing family files: scans, photos, device backups, …
- Office server containing business files: sensitive documents, device backups, …
- Web or email server containing websites, Fediverse instances, emails, etc
In all those cases, full disk encryption (FDE) is a sensible precaution to protect the data in case the server is physically stolen.
Linux is probably the most common OS kernel for self-hosting. On Linux, LUKS (Linux Unified Key Setup) is probably the best FDE system. It’s mature and reliable. But anyone self-hosting a Linux server with LUKS FDE is faced with the question of where to store the keys.
Hardware security tokens (HSTs) are widely considered a safer place for keys than SSDs, HDDs, or USB storage. They follow the smartcard principle: a private key can be written to an HST but not read from it (security vulnerabilities excepted). Instead, they implement cryptographic algorithms to prove possession of the private key. So, anyone self-hosting a Linux server with LUKS FDE should strongly consider storing their private key(s) on an HST.
However, there is more than one way to do that. Hence the question in my OP.
In the UK at least, decisions and rationale about which vaccinations and treatments should be publicly-funded via the NHS are published quite transparently. For example: https://www.nihr.ac.uk/story/preventing-cancer-extending-vaccination-boys
Vaccinating everyone in the UK against everything for which vaccines are available (even against diseases with very low risk in the UK) would cost so much that the NHS would have to cut treatments with very high benefit-to-cost ratio.
Therefore, below a certain benefit-to-cost threshold, the UK has no reasonable choice except to withhold public funding. The HPV vaccine for boys was right on that threshold. IMO, the UK did the right thing by funding the clear benefit (HPV vaccine for girls, whose risk was significantly higher per existing evidence) and extending it to boys when additional evidence showed it was worth doing so.