I'm not that knowledgeable on networking, but I do remember that if a device is connected to a wired network, it can end up receiving packets not meant for it because switches will flood all the ports for packets they don't know how to route. But I also heard that Wi-Fi is supposedly smarter than that and a device connected to it should never receive a packet not meant for it.

Is this true? And in practice, does this mean it's preferable should keep computers with invasive operating systems (which might decide to record foreign packets sent to it in its telemetry) on Wi-Fi instead of on the wired network?

Also, how exactly does Wi-Fi prevent devices from receiving the wrong packets when it's a radio based system and any suitable antenna can receive any Wi-Fi signal? Does each device get assigned a unique encryption key and so is only capable of decrypting packets meant for it? How secure is it actually?

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/36952817

The general consensus here is that if you generate AI art at all, regardless of whether you use it commercially or not, you are engaging in art theft and are in fact an asshole.

So why doesn't that logic get applied to straight up turning someone's digital art and/or photos into memes and having millions of people repost it with zero attribution? I'm not talking about things like wojaks or rage comic characters where the creator intended for it to be a meme and knew for a fact that other people will copy it, nor am I talking about screenshots of popular media franchises, but the random art and photos people post that just happens to resonate with the internet in a way the creator never foresaw, becoming memes without the creator even initially knowing. Think the original advice animal meme templates like Scumbag Steve or Bad Luck Brian where it's literally just a random photo of someone, probably taken off their personal social media. Or the two serious and one goofy dragon drawing and others that were very clearly posts on art sharing sites that got reposted with new context. I've even seen some meme templates go out of their way to crop out names and signatures that the original creator put there so they are credited when their work is reposted. And no one slamming AI art seemingly has a problem with any of it. In fact, if you as the creator of an image tried to get the internet to stop using your personal work as a meme with no attribution, you'd be ignored at best and targeted for doxxing and harassment at worst for spoiling their fun, probably by some of the same people condemning the use of AI.

If you go on art sharing sites, the consensus among the artists themselves is that you're not supposed to repost their work at all unless given a CC license or otherwise explicit permission. Whether it's for commercial use or just as a random internet post doesn't seem to change their stance in the slightest. This implicitly includes not just AI but memes as well, as in both cases you are taking someone else's work and redistributing it without permission or attribution. So why is this okay if AI art is not? It's even more blatant than AI because it's not just stealing tons of people's work, blending them all in a neural network, and spitting out a "new" work that still has fragments of the stolen work, it straight up IS just stealing a specific person's specific work, full stop. I feel like the reason is circular, it's okay because it's been happening since forever and that's what makes it okay. And AI art is not okay because it's new and doesn't already have a history of everyone doing it.

The majority of people condemning AI art are not themselves artists but cite things like "respect for artists" as a reason for condemning it. But most artists aren't just against AI but against their art being reposted by anyone for any purpose, profit or otherwise. Even if they were never going to make money from that piece, they are still against reposts on principle while most of the non-artists seem to only talk about AI separating artists from revenue. So if we're actually to respect artists, wouldn't we adopt that stance for everything and not just commercial use or AI?

And if this is okay, what about AI art makes it different enough to not be okay?

Finally, it's not like people never make money off memes so a binary "AI is for profit while memes aren't" doesn't work.

Not trying to defend AI art, but trying to go further with the discussion that has appeared around it and genuinely trying to tease out some consistency and fundamental values in subjects everyone ostensibly feel extremely strongly about and are not willing to budge.

The general consensus here is that if you generate AI art at all, regardless of whether you use it commercially or not, you are engaging in art theft and are in fact an asshole.

So why doesn't that logic get applied to straight up turning someone's digital art and/or photos into memes and having millions of people repost it with zero attribution? I'm not talking about things like wojaks or rage comic characters where the creator intended for it to be a meme and knew for a fact that other people will copy it, nor am I talking about screenshots of popular media franchises, but the random art and photos people post that just happens to resonate with the internet in a way the creator never foresaw, becoming memes without the creator even initially knowing. Think the original advice animal meme templates like Scumbag Steve or Bad Luck Brian where it's literally just a random photo of someone, probably taken off their personal social media. Or the two serious and one goofy dragon drawing and others that were very clearly posts on art sharing sites that got reposted with new context. I've even seen some meme templates go out of their way to crop out names and signatures that the original creator put there so they are credited when their work is reposted. And no one slamming AI art seemingly has a problem with any of it. In fact, if you as the creator of an image tried to get the internet to stop using your personal work as a meme with no attribution, you'd be ignored at best and targeted for doxxing and harassment at worst for spoiling their fun, probably by some of the same people condemning the use of AI.

If you go on art sharing sites, the consensus among the artists themselves is that you're not supposed to repost their work at all unless given a CC license or otherwise explicit permission. Whether it's for commercial use or just as a random internet post doesn't seem to change their stance in the slightest. This implicitly includes not just AI but memes as well, as in both cases you are taking someone else's work and redistributing it without permission or attribution. So why is this okay if AI art is not? It's even more blatant than AI because it's not just stealing tons of people's work, blending them all in a neural network, and spitting out a "new" work that still has fragments of the stolen work, it straight up IS just stealing a specific person's specific work, full stop. I feel like the reason is circular, it's okay because it's been happening since forever and that's what makes it okay. And AI art is not okay because it's new and doesn't already have a history of everyone doing it.

The majority of people condemning AI art are not themselves artists but cite things like "respect for artists" as a reason for condemning it. But most artists aren't just against AI but against their art being reposted by anyone for any purpose, profit or otherwise. Even if they were never going to make money from that piece, they are still against reposts on principle while most of the non-artists seem to only talk about AI separating artists from revenue. So if we're actually to respect artists, wouldn't we adopt that stance for everything and not just commercial use or AI?

And if this is okay, what about AI art makes it different enough to not be okay?

Finally, it's not like people never make money off memes so a binary "AI is for profit while memes aren't" doesn't work.

Not trying to defend AI art, but trying to go further with the discussion that has appeared around it and genuinely trying to tease out some consistency and fundamental values in subjects everyone ostensibly feel extremely strongly about and are not willing to budge.

I have a lot of tar and disk image backups, as well as raw photos, that I want to squeeze onto a hard drive for long term offline archival, but I want to make the most of the drive's capacity so I want to compress them at the highest ratio supported by standard tools. I've zeroed out the free space in my disk images so I can save the entire image while only having it take up as much space as there are actual files on them, and raw images in my experience can have their size reduced by a third or even half with max compression (and I would assume it's lossless since file level compression can regenerate the original file in its entirety?)

I've heard horror stories of compressed files being made completely unextractable by a single corrupted bit but I don't know how much a risk that still is in 2025, though since I plan to leave the hard drive unplugged for long periods, I want the best chance of recovery if something does go wrong.

I also want the files to be extractable with just the Linux/Unix standard binutils since this is my disaster recovery plan and I want to be able to work with it through a Linux live image without installing any extra packages when my server dies, hence I'm only looking at gz, xz, or bz2.

So out of the three, which is generally considered more stable and corruption resistant when the compression ratio is turned all the way up? Do any of them have the ability to recover from a bit flip or at the very least detect with certainty whether the data is corrupted or not when extracting? Additionally, should I be generating separate checksum files for the original data or do the compressed formats include checksumming themselves?

I have a lot of tar and disk image backups, as well as raw photos, that I want to squeeze onto a hard drive for long term offline archival, but I want to make the most of the drive's capacity so I want to compress them at the highest ratio supported by standard tools. I've zeroed out the free space in my disk images so I can save the entire image while only having it take up as much space as there are actual files on them, and raw images in my experience can have their size reduced by a third or even half with max compression (and I would assume it's lossless since file level compression can regenerate the original file in its entirety?)

I've heard horror stories of compressed files being made completely unextractable by a single corrupted bit but I don't know how much a risk that still is in 2025, though since I plan to leave the hard drive unplugged for long periods, I want the best chance of recovery if something does go wrong.

I also want the files to be extractable with just the Linux/Unix standard binutils since this is my disaster recovery plan and I want to be able to work with it through a Linux live image without installing any extra packages when my server dies, hence I'm only looking at gz, xz, or bz2.

So out of the three, which is generally considered more stable and corruption resistant when the compression ratio is turned all the way up? Do any of them have the ability to recover from a bit flip or at the very least detect with certainty whether the data is corrupted or not when extracting? Additionally, should I be generating separate checksum files for the original data or do the compressed formats include checksumming themselves?

I currently use "The Transit App" for navigating by transit. How bad is that privacy wise? I know it tracks your location at least while you're in the en route mode because it advertises that as part of its real time tracking system, and I'm torn on whether I'm okay with that given that I directly benefit from the improved real time data whenever someone else taking the same line is end route (you can see transit vehicles being tracked by another user's app session vs data from the transit agency itself). Is there anything more shady going on with that app? Is there any way to tell whether it's recording my motion sensors? Is the generic sounding name intentionally hiding that it's made by the CIA or something?

I don't know if it's because of me growing up and my tastes changing, but I could swear fruits from the grocery store when I was a kid were nowhere near as sweet as they are now. Some of the fruits I've eaten recently are genuinely sweeter than soda because the soda tastes bitter after eating the fruit.

Are they selectively breeding/GMOing fruits to produce more sugar? Is that bad? I feel like that's a bad thing but don't actually know.

Is there any way hijacked tasks can read your other files? I assume BOINC uses some kind of sandbox but how secure is it? All my stuff run Linux if that makes a difference.

I really want my primary mobile computer to be a tablet mainly because I genuinely like the form factor. My current Linux laptop is dying and I thought I'd just buy the newest Lenovo Thinkpad Surface clone but Lenovo seems to have discontinued it because I couldn't find a 2025 version anywhere, same with HP and Dell's Surface clones. And most of the Windows tablets I could find online have dinky Intel N processors instead of Core.

Can anyone recommend a high end tablet that runs Linux well? Failing that, how bad is the Surface really with Linux as the only OS?