The password you have chosen is already in use by a different user (bob@example.com). Please choose a different password.

I get that and I think I would do the same. But you have to realize that a loved one asking you this question is clearly not trying to trick you. Rather, you could see it as them giving you an opportunity to show how lovely you are. It’s the setup for a joke and you can make them smile.

My ex told me they would build me the most beautiful worm house and then go on a quest to track down the wizard who cursed me. I thought that was beautiful.

The first gamer pope 😎

I asked ChatGPT and it says he still needs his glasses while not in costume. So that settles this debate.

/s

Sure. For the fact that many jurisdictions outside of the US also consider freedom of speech and other human rights to apply between private parties: this is called “horizontal effect” and covered extensively in case law by e.g. the European Court of Human Rights. See also this chapter for an international comparison and this paper for a European perspective.

As for the specific rules in the EU for platforms: Article 17 of the Digital Services Act requires that users who are banned or shadowbanned from any platform are provided with specific information of what rule they broke, which they can then appeal internally or in court. Article 34 and 35 requires very large platforms (such as X) to take broad measures to protect i.a. the users’ freedom of speech.

More to the point, one person who was shadowbanned by X in a similar way used the DSA and won in court

(Edited to add the last paragraph)

*in the US.

The EU recognizes that human right such as freedom of speech also should be protected against private parties. Platforms can’t ban or restrict you for arbitrary reasons here.

I’m of the opinion that having a lot of money shouldn’t, in fact, allow you to do what you want. No person should have this power to do mass censorship, not in the last place because manipulating online discourse means manipulating a fundamental aspect of democracy.

Musk specifically is meddling in elections, both in the EU and the US by e.g. bribing voters. Turning the dials of the algorithm lets him do this even more effectively.

But the whole point of the doomsday machine is lost… if you keep it a secret! Why didn’t you tell the world, eh?

So what is the reason for doing it that way?

And you think that’s going to happen by removing the trashcans?

As long as it’s not an exit node, nobody will be able to tell what the traffic is. It’s all encrypted including the metadata.

That fact that you think “idealistic version of early US” is a compliment is very telling.

Your proposal is just an idealistic version of early US. You claim that corruption is fundamentally impossible, but assume that magically “the monarchs aren’t allowed to own property” without regard to enforcement. You claim to have an alternative to democracy but still propose majority voting on replacing rulers and constitutions. You simply assume that monarchs will keep each other in check and not devolve into the conspiring, warmongering tyrants that history is full of.

Power can always be abused to get more power and go against all your original ideals. The only way to definitely prevent corruption is to ensure power is never concentrated in the hands of few.

Are you free tonight? Because I don’t have any money.

How does that increase the risk compared to something like JBOD or overlayfs? In both cases you will lose data if a drive fails. Keep in mind that this is btrfs raid0, not regular raid. If anything that decreases the chance of corruption because the metadata is redundantly stored on both drives.

No mention of systemd? This is unacceptable.

A disk failure will cause you to lose data, yes. But that’s also the case in all the other solutions discussed here. Backups should be handled separately and are not part of the original question.

Have you considered simply setting btrfs to RAID 0?