unwarlikeExtortion

CUPS is the UNIX (i.e. both Linux AND Mac) print software. For some reason it's maintained by Apple.

So chances are if a printer works on Mac (which it will), it'll also work on Linux (which it does).

You only need to find the right "print driver" which is actually just a preset for CUPS. Scrolling the list can be quite annoying if you don't know where to look, as it's highly unlikely to find your exact model listed (which doesn't mean others won't work - they will. It's just hit or miss sometimes if the autodetect doesn't work).

That being said, if you're shopping for a printer and have the ability to choose, try checking the manufacturer support website for "Linux drivers" (i.e. ppd files). Most should turn something up.

Probably not. AFAIK docker isn't a virtual machine in the traditional sense that it has its reserved storage other apps on the machine can't access. And even if it were, it's the same physical drive.

Now I'm not too versed myself in SSD firmware so maybe the large file size really is like a wide net, or maybe the file size isn't important - only the fact you're doing read operations on a small space on the SSD may give enough volatility in the read speed to infer the exact app that decided to spin up at that moment.

The simplest fix that comes to mind is to have multiple drives (e.g. install and data) and put the browser on the data one. Maybe this added complexity can throw off some naive attacks. Also, a HDD "naturally" has some variability in the access time (since it needs to physically locate the sector with its read heads).

So in essence, laptops with a single SSD are by far the most vulnerable.

However, adding sane limits on the vulnerable API mentioned and throttling read/write speeds (ideally with randomization) seems like a fix good even for single-drive laptops.

What'd probably work with Docker is a similar read speed throttling setup.

Spoofing identifying information won't help much since read time variability is what matters here. It may make it take more info to infer performance rather than having the transparent information, but a good model is bound to infer pretty well after some initial data.

That's putting it mildly.

It's if they'd know the exact food in your fridge and where you got it from. Or the exact makeup of the clothes you buy. Oh, kid's clothes? What a lovley daughter you have! Would you like some educational material targeted for 4-8 year-olds?

And aren't you expecting another one?

Use a blender? What lovely strawberry milkshakes you like for breakfast. Why not tell the store most of your food comes from to raise their prices a bit, since it seems to be a trend in your city?

Do you have meds in the fridge? Well, these items are often sold together, have a look. Oh, and a price increase.

Evem then, hardware revisions were always a thing. Doing something they're forced to rather than what they'd themselves want is surely a bigger pain in the ass, but clearly a hardware revision in and of itself isn't that big of a pain to be a shit hits the fan-only move.

It's a regular part of manufacturing.

They are. It's a step in the right direction and I absolutely welcome it.

However, it's way overdue in my book, and the harm is im the waiting. It's much better to strike while the iron's still hot and avoid these issues. As is not waiting on improving accessibility.

I'm also intrigued by the fact Google makes such custom devices for the market. I think I came across some explanations lurking (and sometimes popping my head out and commenting) here on Lemmy (and on Reddit before the API apocalypse), but I don't really have anywhere to point you in your search other than Libredirect+Reddit since searching Lemmy has always proven an uncatchable golden goose to me.

There are a few issues with there being... a single ideal privacy option line of devices (the Pixels):

• the pixel isn't available for sale in all regions
• there are only so much Pixels out there.. Meaning less options to choose from and potentially higher prices
• people using them stand out... So much so some agencies treat Pixel users like criminals even if they don't have Graphene on it
• Google may choose to end the Pixel line, drastically limit production or remove some feature Graphene relies upon any time they feel like

Having more vendor choice drastically lowers these negatives. And I can't really think of any negatives for the other side than increased dev time and operating costs.

Having the privacy features trickle down to other devices is great since some already landed in AOSP.

However, the trickle down is slow (and often a myth). And some protection is better than no protection.

Why are a multitude of poor options better than a few good options?

Is anything other than a Pixel a poor option?

They may be suboptimal but... Some hardening is definitely better than no hardening any day of the week.

What actively blocking "okay" or even "good" options when "the perfect" one exists should be plainly obvious.

Privacy-consciousness will never spread. Which also has negative effects on the privacy-conscious. Namely point 3 of my little list.

I'd choose gold. AFAIK most all money laundering rules deal with cash.

Even if a geine were to give you 500 tons of cash or gold, some governments may have a problem with that and choose to redistribute it.

Choosing gold makes the value much more liquid in my opinion.

Not to mention that gold doesn't rot (unlike USD). In today's economy gold is probably more value-dense (as in, a pound of gold is worth more than a pound of hundered-dollar bills).

Currencies also come and go but gold stays. If you're thinking long-term, gold is the vastly better choice.

reCAPTCHA protects. your privacy

I love how they used that period. Seems way better than that lawyer guy from the Simpsons.

Well...

A data center is... A data center. So a central plave for data.

It isn't called Data Warehouse, Data Industrual Plant or Data Mega Shop.

So - if the place is... a central place for the town people's data (as in OC's cases)....

Wouldn't "Data Center" be a fitting name?

So what?

As if the US government or US compabies don't play the same "underhanded" tactics to harm competition.

Selling at a loss to earn market share is a perfectly valid strategy for US corpos. Why is China supposedly doing the exact same thing suddenly not as nice?

So... a "Make sure all votes are for the only true candidate" army?

And... They didn't communicate this with you beforehand?