Also food delivery.

In Finland, there used to be “pizza-online” which was really just a directory and ordering system for restaurants that already did delivery themselves.

They took a very small comission, as the site didn’t really do anything except connect restaurant and customer (and provide a review platform). For a long time, they didn’t even have an app.

You’d log in, select a restaurant, browse their menu and place an order. The order goes to the restaurant, and after that the site’s job was done.

It was massively succesful. Every hole in-the-wall pizza place was on there. Finding good food was easy and cheap, and the restaurants reached more customers than ever. And the platform including reviews led to competition in not just price, but quality.

Then pizza-online sold to foodora, and they got shut down, and psrticipating restaurant were no longer allowed to deliver themselves, and the cut taken by the platform skyrocketed.

There are two PINs, PIN1 for ZKP and PIN2 for digital signing. The card does nothing without one.

Most EU countries provide some way for citizens to sign documents using a private key tied to their legal personage.

Putting it on the ID card they are given anyway just makes sense.

My final paragraph is there to explain that a lot of “digital signatures” aren’t really signatures in any meaningful way. What goes into the actual file doesn’t matter at all, UNLESS it’s the aforementioned cryptographic signature.

When a website has you type a name as a signature it’s a legal representation of that signature. There’s nothing cryptographic at all about it. Wjere would you even store the key? I’ve made ways to use Webauthn keys to do this, but no signatory uses these methods.

I claimed no such thing. That is not a digital signature.

I’m fairly certain we are not discussing the same thing.

I can digitally sign documents the way I have described, NOT IN A WEB BROWSER, using entirely local or even open source software, using my government issued ID card.

The solution provided for electronic signatures by the Digital and Population Data Services Agency is a signature certificate. The certificate is located in the card chip.

As described by the relevant finnish agency, this is enabled by a “signature certificate” stored on peoples ID cards. The functionality uses a separate PIN from that which you use to verify your identity in the context of a website you are visiting.

I am not aware of any other way for me to sign a document in such a way. All the other signatures, which do also work, are something else. And potentially insecure in all the ways OP thinks. (Someone else can type the same name).

The word you’re looking for is “fanaticism”. And few consider it positive.

Fanaticism and loyalty are essentially the same thing. You pick the word to describe the same behaviour, depending on context. You call someone a fanatic when it is a bad thing. You call someone loyal, when it is a good thing.

Loyalty/fanaticism is trust+commitment. Children taking care of their parents as they age is a form of loyalty, and few would argue that’s a bad thing.

It’s really just a digital way to do the equivalent of printing the document, signing it, and scanning it again. Which is also accepted in a lot of situations.

The visual signature part of a “digital signature” is purely cosmetic. The actual signature is the entire file being cryptographically signed using a private key you possess, which any recipient can then verify came from you by using a public key.

This is the case for all government issue signatures (like when using the private key inside a chipped government id card) or any other signature created using a key pair from an issuing authority.

If its not a digital signature in this way, the other way is literally just an image. It can be a vector or an raster, or a straight up scan of a physically signed document. It’s just a picture. It has no digital verification whatsoever.

I’ve only managed it accidentally.

But usually the pattern is contacting/getting contacted due to some matter that needs discussing. The source for that can be needing some pointers on using someone elses code, or providing feedback on how someone moderates, etc.

For me it’s usually come from participating more extensively. Engaging in community building such as my modding titanfall and hosting northstar servers. Starting a bunch of lemmy communities.

Then, once something gives you a reason to go a couple back and forths into an exchange, and there is mutual interest, it just keeps going. After that you can pick up with the same skillset you’d use with someone you’ve met in person.

The difference is that you’ll need to keep it going by deliberately reviving the conversation now and then. That won’t happen by running into the person face to face or some similar context the way it might work with a coworker or someone in your social circle.

Orange cat, only in the brain.

Note, #4 will not apply to files MOVED into the directory. Only files that count as “created” there (like a copy operation).

No.

Assuming you’re accessing your files via network mounts, those file are being created by the relevant SMB/NFS/SSH daemon. ALL FILES are created by some process or other. If you click “new file” in Dolphin, that process is Dolphin.

Which means there is a umask you can configure.

My network SMB mount that leads to my jellyfin libraries is configured (on the server) to access the filesystem under my user and the shared media group. Hence files it “creates” are always done so with correct permissions. User, group and umask are configurable for each share.

This way, I can copy files from a share containing “my” files, into the media share, and have the owner, group and umask automatically “translate” into what they should be in either direction. Theres not really a way to do that directly on the system. It’s something you can only really set up when moving files around between the shares and hence their respective environments.

If I did the move in the terminal directly on the host system, shit would instantly break.

Files and directories can only have one owner for user and group, each. If files you create belonged to every group you are in, that’d be a permission nightmare, so by default, the group permission is “unused” (it just gets set to the same as your user).

You could add the application that needs to access files created by you to your user group, but that’s a lot more permissive than it needs to be (it gets to access all your files with group access granted).

If you’re managing files via network shares, the solution is in their settings.

If you’re managing files on the system directly, that’s trickier. New files can be made to inherit the group of the parent directory (edit: other commentor), which solves your problem only some of the time, as it won’t affect files you move into the folder. In those cases you still have to fix the group after moving. That, or copy instead of move.

Bottom line: You’re not really supposed to manage this stuff directly. When you go in and create files directly on the host system, you are bypassing the systems that would normally set permissions inside a share or directory that is being accessed by multiple applications, users, and services.

Making the default of files created in such a way non-permissive, is by design. That you have to manually correct the group permissions on a file you just moved in from another permission environment, is as it should be.

No, you are not expected to cronjob the chmod command.

You want “umask”. That’s the term, you can google it for more info.

Basically, it’s the setting that controls what the default permissions are for the files created by a process.

Jellyfins umask is configurable using the systemd unit file. Arr stack umasks are somewhere in their settings… Etc.

It is process specific, and something you configure for each application. Owner is whatever user runs the process, and same goes for group.

Group does not need to be same as user. You can run jellyfin with a “jellyfin” user and “media” group, so that some other app managing the media files can deal with jellyfins files by running under a different user but the same “media” group.

As long as you set their umasks to allow group access they will then always be able to pass files and directeries between them.

I’ve no experience with ACLs. I’ve used SMB, and SSHFS to a lesser extent, and always with very simple setups.

My user accessing my own users files via SMB, and ssh only via the admin user and as such with root level access.

But generally, unix-style permissions should allow you to be able to set things up in whatever way you might need. Getting there can be complex, but there is always a way to configure what permissions directories and files will have when created, and hence what users/groups can access them.

Also, sometimes the answer is to edit the groups. Such as adding a user being used to access a share to the relevant groups, instead of messing with owners or groups of existing files and directories.

Or, creating a whole new group (like “pictures” for your camera roll thing) which you add all the relevant users to (yourself, and whatever apps will be accessing the relevant directories). Plus then configure umasks so that files actually default to allowing group level access.

“You hate hotdogs? YOU MUST LOVE BURGERS THEN”

What are you even trying to say?

This is like trying to solve mental illness by making sickness illegal.

Make babies! It’s illegal to be lonely!

It does work.

If you have two EFI partitions, Windows will stop looking once it finds the first one.

Which is actually a problem sometimes, as it will stop looking and use the first one it finds, even if it’s on different drive than windows.

Imagine installing windows on a machine with two drives. Drive A already has an OS and an EFI partition, so you install Windows to drive B.

Except Windows will still go ahead and drop the bootloader onto drive A. Potentially breaking the OS that’s there, plus setting up Windows in such a way that it requires drive A to boot. EVEN THOUGH THAT ISN’T WHERE YOU INSTALLED IT.

This is why guides tell you to install windows with only one drive connected. It’s the only way to ensure it puts the bootloader and OS on the same drive.

That certainly helps.

In my case the solution is two EFI partitions.

Windows finds the first and doesn’t bother looking for a second one, which happens to contain grub and my efistubs.

Windows will go ahead and clear the UEFI menu sometimes, but manually booting an efi file and then re-adding the grub and stub boot entries is small compared to having my stuff actually deleted.

The water comes out at a single point at high pressure below the sphere.

It then travels out and exits all around the sphere.

The water can be pumped below the sphere very slowly, but at high pressure, and that way still lift the sphere.

The water doesn’t get squeezed and accelerate towards the outside edge, because as it flows outward, the circle gets bigger. The area expands.

Hence it slows down, drops in pressure, and comes out at a trickle.

It’s not like pinching the end of a hose. It’s like adding a kink in the hose before the end. There is huge pressure before the kink (the water that lifts the sphere), and after the kink the pressure is super low (the water exiting from below the sphere). It makes the water slow down and come out at a trickle. Even though the pressure before the kink is huge.

https://audiorelay.net/

Yes and no.

If the goal is to have the best support for all future games, sure.

But that’s not what protons main goal is.

The main goal is to get all the hundreds of thousands of games that have already been made, to work.

Making one game for linux, only produces one game.

Getting proton right, gets every past game that has ever worked on windows, to work on linux.

That a lot of future games will also work thanks to this, and hence require less work to run on linux, is a bonus. Not the main goal.

Hence, proton is ABSOLUTELY worth it. Even if microsoft released directx 13 tomorrow, that wouldn’t break any of the games that already work. The alternative is to go back and port each game one at a time. Proton isn’t just happening instead of linux ports. It’s also happening instead of porting all old games, and enables running games with shuttered studios, unclear IP onwership, lost source code or lost interest.

If you REALLY want appimages for archiving, the best way would be to package an individual game, a proton wrapper with all the dependencies, and compile that up into a neat appimage. Then you’d have a “future proof” executable file for that one game to keep and run in the future.

But that’s ignoring the fact that appimages and flatpaks aren’t truly that agnostic. Changes in graphics APIs happen on linux, too.

And it makes way more sense to use the same proton for multiple games, instead of bundling an extra copy of it with each game.

This is isn’t a screenshot. It’s a screenphoto.