Opencloud is the was to go from the established systems in my opinion. https://github.com/opencloud-eu
File sharing and -management for me has a higher level of trust and stability requirements. Syncin with four developers and “doing everything” while based on typescript makes me suspicious - but I haven’t tried it hands-on.
Traefik and caddy were mentioned, the third in the game is usually nginxproxymanager.
I’m using both traefik and nginx in two different setups. The nginxproxymanager can be configured via UI natively which makes checking configurations a bit easier.
Traefik on the other hand is configured easily within the compose itself and you have everything in one place.
This turned out to be tiresome though if you don’t have a monolithic compose file - that’s actually even hr history why I switched to npm in the first place.
I don’t have any experience with caddy so can’t provide anecdotal insights there.
I really like it already so take this as an alternative, not as improvement:l. I don’t have a good eye for aesthetics anyway don’t his is more about structure.
Personally I switched from a single dashboard to purpose driven hubs - I can’t imagine a situation where I need my infrastructure and my calendar at the same time regularly for example.
Another point is context typing: your release checker is quite far away from your appointments and calendar. It looks to me to be sorted by content rather then function (i.e. it’s entertainment so it’s next to YouTube). The same is true for your interaction patterns. There is a lot of visual information which I’m sure you’ll rarely interact with but instead consume. And then there are clearly external links, both bottom left (opencloud, tooling) and top right (external media) in addition to your own self hosted content.
My suggestion is therefore a process instead of a change: Note down when you consume which features of this awesome dashboard together for a few days. Then restructure the content of the whole dashboard based on your usage patterns - either as a new Monolith or even experimenting with splitting it.
I even suggest using a different medium then your usage device (if it’s a desktop PC mainly use pen and paper, if it’s your laptop use your phone, if it’s your phone you use this dashboard on then you might have different problems :D)
You don’t! At least not in the sense that I’m aware of the JADE thing:
JADE is nothing that is a strong work proven topic but came from social media to handle narcissistic people as a peer group.
Your reactions are hostility and rejection based and how I understand you it’s your nerves that you want to preserve.
For this in a professional work place there are multiple ways to deal with and even all of them at the same time, just from the top of my head:
Hope this helps a bit!
As I don’t know your parents I can just project from myself: Whoever would be the physically closer one at that precise moment.
I can’t imagine a situation where this could be a rational decision unless one of you fucked them over in a way I can’t even begin to fathom.
This is so deep monked brain territory that it really comes down to pure instinct and that is driven by perceived higher chance.
If the situation is in a way there it’s impossible (for example would have to carry both of you but you’re too heavy) chances would be high that we’d all die together - not because of some heroism bullshit but simply because I know my inner monkey quite well and it’s self preservation instinct vs kin preservation are … Let’s say not in my favor ad an individual :D
As much as if saddens me to write it: the enterprise bullshit.
I’m not allowed to use Linux at work because it’s more complicated than the out of the box experience of MacOS and windows in terms of remote management, encryption enforcement, company certificates and all this useless bullshit.
“gimme your mongodb url for me to do anything”
Last example where I was … Annoyed by: unifi. Their management application demands a mongodb.
If you do don’t trust em then don’t update syncthing - it’ll work for quite a while I assume.
And in addition the keepass safe default encryption of AES-256 and is even secure against theoretically existing quantum computer attacks to our current knowledge. It is designed to be not trusted by the storage owner :)
They are employed by themselves. They are not employed AS anything else. You have it right just your conclusion is inconsistent.
It’s for me not about the wording of the last paragraph by the way but about the context and requirements list which makes the impression (to me) of offering an employee/employer relationship which is only broken up in the last line. That’s the part I really don’t like.
This kind of advertisement would be illegal in Germany btw as it would encourage pseudo self employment: someone self employed who is relying on one client only. (And no, not exaggerated: I’ve a legal department at least pull job description from the tech dept similar to this).
Heh I literally at the same time you posted answered to someone else that I think I er where I’m coming from.
Personally my issue is more with the framing (“looking for an employee”) than with the fact that they want/need a contractor.
I still wish them the best and would encourage everyone qualified to put their energy into a project like this rather than … Close to anything else!
I get where you’re coming from. I highly respect this project for its privacy push and it’s sadly a good example of “not all issues have the same priority”.
I honestly can see them just not being able to handle the business risk of a full employee would bring or several other reasons why it’s “okay” from their perspective. I now basically have to choose between two subjects that I find important.
For me I came to the conclusion that I still wish them the best - I can’t hold them to a standard ass high as the corporate world personally, let alone one higher.
“you will be employed as an independent contractor”
Dear (US) companies: this is not “employed”. This is commissioned or mandated, depending on the contract details.
Which is quite a feat for a showerthought community…
While I understand the aggressive anti religious sentiment I also emphasize with your beliefs so perhaps a different way of phrasing it:
The link to religion is not so much on right or wrong but accepting or not. I’d I understand your context than your church teaches accepting and empathy.
This is not a universal, objective “correct” thing! You, and me as well, feel these values as right and choose to defend them. But there’s no nature law enforcing this.
And now the opposite as true as well. By having a peer group which is self reinforcing people can come to the belief that there are people who are worth less. Or evil. Or dumb.
Now the step to fascism is only a small one: my nation is best, my leader is best, etc.
If belief gets strong enough than objective discussion can’t take place anymore - both for things that we connotate positive as well as negative.
There isn’t a global law about age verification they countries could be exempt of. It’s individual countries doing it.
And on top of that the laws are different from what I’ve seen, in the UK for example you have to fullfil certain criteria to fall under that law. But frankly it seems to be a mess in my opinion.
This is what an age verification service says about it:
https://www.yoti.com/blog/understanding-age-verification-online-safety-act/
Sadly there is no answer for you available because many of the processes around this are hidden.
I can only chime in from my own amateur experiments and there are answer is a clear “depends”. Most adjustments are made either via additional training data. This simply means that you take more data and feed it indi an already trained LLM. The result is again an LLM black box with all its stochastic magic.
The other big way are system prompts. Those are simply instructions that already get interpreted as a part of te request and provide limitations.
These can get white fancy by now, in the sense of “when the following query asks you to count something run this python script with whatever you’re supposed to count as input, the result will be a json that you can take then and do XYZ with it.”
Or more simple: you tell the model to use other programs and how to use them.
For both approaches I don’t need to maintain list: For the first one I have no way of knowing what it’s doing in detail and I just need to keep the documents themselves.
For the second one it’s literally a human readable text.
The first part is a technical question and the second part a definition one.
For the how to: the most common approach is to simply blacklist their IPs on a provider basis. This leads to no provider that obeys your blacklists to allow their users traffic to that target. Usually all providers in a nation obey that nations law (I assume, I only know that for my own :D)
For the censorship: I don’t like that word because it’s implications fan be used against any and all laws. A shitload of content is made inaccessible because it breaks laws from active coordination of attacks to human trafficking. All of this can be described as censorship.
Forthe UK law it’s… I’m not British and to me it appears to be a vague tool to silence and control all types of content under the guise of protecting children. Not with the intention to protect or prevent something but with the intent to control. I would fully understand and emphasize with using the word censorship in this context.
Friend, there is only one kind of dumb question: those that are statements with a question marks at the end of are simply a vehicle to place a statement.
And even those are fine by me if the asking being realizes this within the discussion. (“Why are we allowing women to vote if they are that much dumber than men?” is a stupid question in my book - and even that can lead to “oh wow I always just assumed that to be true but (data/argument) made me realize that I was wrong!”. Rare but can happen…)
Worked for me, hope the copy paste does as well
The LHCb experiment has observed a new difference between matter and antimatter in particles called baryons
By Clara Moskowitz edited by Lee Billings
Baryon particle illustration.
Thomas Parsons/Science Source
Matter and antimatter are like mirror opposites: they are the same in every respect except for their electric charge. Well, almost the same—very occasionally, matter and antimatter behave differently from each other, and when they do, physicists get very excited. Now scientists at the world’s largest particle collider have observed a new class of antimatter particles breaking down at a different rate than their matter counterparts. The discovery is a significant step in physicists’ quest to solve one of the biggest mysteries in the universe: why there is something rather than nothing.
The world around us is made of matter—the stars, planets, people and things that populate our cosmos are composed of atoms that contain only matter, and no antimatter. But it didn’t have to be this way. Our best theories suggest that when the universe was born it had equal amounts of matter and antimatter, and when the two made contact, they annihilated one another. For some reason, a small excess of matter survived and went on to create the physical world. Why? No one knows.
So physicists have been on the hunt for any sign of difference between matter and antimatter, known in the field as a violation of “charge conjugation–parity symmetry,” or CP violation, that could explain why some matter escaped destruction in the early universe.
Today physicists at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)’s LHCb experiment published a paper in the journal Nature announcing that they’ve measured CP violation for the first time in baryons—the class of particles that includes the protons and neutrons inside atoms. Baryons are all built from triplets of even smaller particles called quarks. Previous experiments dating back to 1964 had seen CP violation in meson particles, which unlike baryons are made of a quark-antiquark pair. In the new experiment, scientists observed that baryons made of an up quark, a down quark and one of their more exotic cousins called a beauty quark decay more often than baryons made of the antimatter versions of those same three quarks.
Magnet for the LHCb (large hadron collider beauty) particle detector at CERN (the European particle physics laboratory) near Geneva, Switzerland.
CERN/Science Source
“This is a milestone in the search for CP violation,” says Xueting Yang of Peking University, a member of the LHCb team that analyzed the data behind the measurement. “Since baryons are the building blocks of the everyday things around us, the first observation of CP violation in baryons opens a new window for us to search for hints of new physics.”
The LHCb experiment is the only machine in the world that can summon sufficient energies to make baryons containing beauty quarks. It does this by accelerating protons to nearly the speed of light, then smashing them together in about 200 million collisions every second. As the protons dissolve, the energy of the crash springs new particles into being.
“It is an amazing measurement,” says theoretical physicist Edward Witten of the Institute for Advanced Study, who was not involved in the experiment. "Baryons containing b [beauty] quarks are relatively hard to produce, and CP violation is very delicate and hard to study.”
The 69-foot-long, 6,000-ton LHCb experiment can track all the particles created during the collisions and the many different ways they can break down into smaller particles. “The detector is like a gigantic four-dimensional camera that is able to record the passage of all the particles through it,” says LHCb spokesperson and study co-author Vincenzo Vagnoni of the Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics (INFN). “With all this information, we can reconstruct precisely what happened in the initial collision and everything that came out and then decayed.”
The matter-antimatter difference scientists observed in this case is relatively small, and it fits within predictions of the Standard Model of particle physics—the reigning theory of the subatomic realm. This puny amount of CP violation, however, cannot account for the profound asymmetry between matter and antimatter we see throughout space.
“The measurement itself is a great achievement, but the result, to me, is not surprising,” says Jessica Turner, a theoretical physicist at Durham University in England, who was not involved in the research. “The observed CP violation seems to be in line with what has been measured before in the quark sector, and we know that is not enough to produce the observed baryon asymmetry.”
To understand how matter got the upper hand in the early universe, physicists must find new ways that matter and antimatter diverge, most likely via particles that have yet to be seen. “There should be a new class of particles that were present in the early universe, which exhibit a much larger amount of this behavior,” Vagnoni says. “We are trying to find little discrepancies between what we observe and what is predicted by the Standard Model. If we find a discrepancy, then we can pinpoint what is wrong.”
The researchers hope to discover more cracks in the Standard Model as the experiment keeps running. Eventually LHCb should collect about 30 times more data than was used for this analysis, which will allow physicists to search for CP violation in particle decays that are even rarer than the one observed here. So stay tuned for an answer to why anything exists at all.
The answer is a clear yes.
In short: Choose your tool that will suit you throughout your degree and really dig into it and learn it now while doing your paper.
Long version:
This is absolutely common and I’m not aware of a text editor which supports footnotes but doesn’t support automatically numbering and referencing.
In latex there’s actually a \footnote that takes care of that. In libre office, if I recall correctly, it’s Insert -> Footnote and I’m sure there are templates with the proper formatting and font sizing already in place.
Now it sounds like you’re quite early in your higher degree career - depending on your goals and future challenges you might want to either go the easiest route or really dig into writing-based formatting: It’s just faster if you’re typing all the time to not switch to a mouse to inert footnotes - but only if your really used to it.