set up a second efi boot partition

This may or may not work. Recognizing a second ESP on the same disk is not required in the EFI standard. So it’s down to your board’s implementation if it works or just stops the moment it finds the first one.

…by design.

Because you always need to keep escalating and broadening the definition of who’s not part of the protected in-group.

The neanderthal thugs they hired just skipped to the last part of the poem.

Yes this includes violent criminals, but from my interpretation it also would include someone accused of stealing a candy bar.

It’s worse. Basically anything while getting (unlawfully) arrested can be constructed as “assault on a law enforcement officer”.

That’s the point of all this nonsense.

It makes the racists cheer and keep voting for those idiots, so they can keep up the grift. The stories about only targeting the “bad ones” was never more than a fig leaf until the discussion has moved so far to right-wing extremism (or censorship and persecution of diverging opinions is established well enough) that they can drop the act.

An entire city’s worth of people

At some point it will be easier and more efficient to house them in camps in centralized locations where the ressources (and people) can be better concentrated…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing

That’s the probably most unhelpful and stupid thing I saw in quite some time. The AI or Not Quiz right at the beginning in particular regularly links the exact same things to human or to AI (404 links are a sign or AI hallucination or just natural link decay that show it’s from a human; wonky grammar is a sign for AI unless the text is human-written where it’s just bad english that LLMs would not produce intentionally…).

Yes, spotting AI by clear attributes isn’t easy. If it was those points would be changed first in training of AI. But lengthily discussing tell–tale signs then interpreting them in contrary ways depending on source is absolute bullshit.

No, you said these videos show common mistakes on purpose because real users would make them. Which is okay…

But it doesn’t matter if it was an honest mistake or one made on purpose because it’s a common thing.

Ignoring the chat telling him the problem (and that he caused it himself) and also not mentioning the problem’s origin anymore later was not an accident. Given the fact that he later made some offhand comment about “yeah, shader thing again” he understood the problem yet intentionally chose to not include the explanation in the video but leave it at “on Linux there are random freezes I don’t understand”.

I would at least pretend to learn from my mistakes. So when I skip the shader compilation, then experience freezes while shaders get loaded and the whole f***ing chat mentions it, letting them compile first and then seeing if that fixes the issue would be in fact the first thing I would try…

So no, this is not honest “showing common mistakes other people will experience” or “struggling with basics”. Because if it was honest there would be any mention of the underlying issue once he understood it. And he obviously did, judging by a later offhand comment about “yeah, shader issues…”

When using the systemd hooks for your initramfs (and using rd.luks.name=<UUID>=<name> instead of cryptdevice=UUID=<UUID>:<name> in the kernel parameters) it will try to decrypt all listed drives with the first password typed in, and only ask for additional passwords if that fails. Unlike the “traditional” busybox hooks that will ask for a password for each device. Doesn’t matter what you actually do with the drives themselves.

So yes, you can for example have partitions/devices /dev/sda1, /dev/sda2, /dev/sdb1 all encrypted with the same password, format sda1 as your classic swap partition, sda2 as the first half of your btrfs raid0 root device and sdb1 as the second half (let’s give them fitting names when decrypting, so /dev/mapper/cryptswap, /dev/mapper/cryptroot-a and /dev/mapper/cryptroot-b), with rd.luks.name=<UUID>=cryptswap rd.luks.name=<UUID>=cryptroot-a rd.luks.name=<UUID>=cryptroot-b in your kernel parameters.

And at boot you will be asked for the password only once, which will unlock all three encrypted partitions. (Unless you mistype. Then it will fall back to the default behavior of asking for 3 passwords, one for each.)

(PS: You can also just unlock other encrypted devices via /etc/crypttab later in the boot process. That’s the much easier option and should be prefered unless you really need them early… as in they are your (or part of your) root device, swap etc.)

The actual real question if you don’t want to figure out everything manually is which options the installer supports.

They don’t care how ridicoulus they look because it’s all theater for their brain-dead audience anyway.

Here you go, a little praxeological explanation of why people are so “dumb”, which is much better than saying they are idiots, at least when it comes to actually trying to better the world, when it comes to hope ;)

Yeah, sounds right… until you broaden your horizon and realize that this is not US exclusive.

There are many countries that actually have non-neoliberal parties to chose from. And guess what… those also don’t get enough votes to be more than a minor factor in government coalitions. Because the reality is: many people are really idiots (not their fault often given the state of education but still…) and fall for the same right-wing screaming again and again (and yes it is exactly the same - the right only has one single playbook and they all constantly copy from each other), no matter if there is actually a voice of reason to listen to instead.

There is a reason we are putting up with decades of legacy stuff still from the original x86 architecture in PCs… the compatibility of hardware and the standardisation even if it’s through several extensions build off each other is unmatched.

ARM architecture might be much simpler but you constantly need hardware specific adaptions, which makes support for different mobile devices this mess.

Your best options when you are already doing a fresh new install:

• make both drives one virtual one with LVM, then encrypt that virtual drive

But that’s not related to BTRFS at all and can be done with any file system

• encrypt both drives with the same password, format them as BTRFS raid0 (again making it one big virtual drive), use the systemd hooks in your initramfs because then the first password you will provide on boot will unlock both drives (only if this fails on the first try you will be asked for additional passwords - also if you mistype your password once you will then have to unlock both by typing the password both; you only get one attempt to unlock everything with the same password).

If you can do this is mostly depending on the specific installer (I would assume only the first option works by default…). It’s definitely possible in general but “I’m not technical enough” doesn’t go well with all the details you have to figure out yourself when the installer doesn’t do all the work.

If they have the same password you can just unlog them at boot with one password. They SystemD hook for unlocking LUKS drives automatically tries the first provided password on all encrypted drives it’s supposed to unlock. Only if that fails it will ask for additional passwords.

The super-rich and corporations want that

The real problem is that because the super-rich want it the majority is also on board because they are mostly brain-dead and will parrot every shit media pours into their empty heads.

Which again leads to: the people want Trump. Why they want him is a completely different topic. But the fact does not go away just because you don’t want it to be true.

Is it really an escalation from the already established case of ‘wanting to nuke a hurricane’?

I like Bing search results…

They are the perfect comic relief between the serious results on my SearXNG page.

No, I just reject the notion that the ongoing discussion about AI use in software production is a moral/ethical one. That’s a bullshit narrative to actually discredit all the good reasons against AI by making up a mostly fictional “but it’s just ideology”-argument.

Yes actions include moral choices. But actions that are stupid and make no sense at all don’t need to be discussed in terms of is it ethically okay to do it, because that’s not the interesting point there.

I won’t discuss about the moral choice of hitting my thumb with a hammer, even less to when I tried hammering in a screw like a moron. So I will also not discuss imaginary topics of ethical use of AI in coding. Because it’s bullshit. It produces low quality slob. It’s a scam trying to tell people with no clue about programmning that they can totally do it, too, while trying to gas-light programmers into believing that they really, really need to use that tool for coding or be left behind. Using AI for coding because you already used it for debugging tasks is not an ethical discussion. Just like using a hammer for a screw because you already hammered in nails is not one. It’s a discussion about what AI CAN do and what it CAN’T. Discussions if you SHOULD use AI for a specific task have to happen AFTER you determined if it makes sense first place. And to return the hammer analogy a third time (it’s a magic number after all…): If someone would try to argue that we need to discuss the ethics of hammering in a screw because it already worked with a nail, would you agree that all actions have ethical implications that need to be considered or would you dismiss him because the ethical discussion is not relevant. I did the latter in my comment.

Again: If using AI for coding for real world purposes (and I don’t talk about non-technical people building their low quality app here… that’s mostly a gimmick) was viable, sure… use it. Or let’s start an ethics discussion then. That’s fine with me, too.

But don’t pretend that the actual discussion right know, mainly lead by clueless people evaluating a new gimmick with very little understanding of its actual capabilities (and limits) and CEOs willing to believe in any snake oil if it promises to help them get rid of those obnoxious workers demanding pay (it won’t - every actual fact and number tells us that AI is in fact more expensive, even before figuring in the human employees also needed to hold the leash) is one about ethical use in coding. It isn’t. It’s about a discussion between those that use AI for the things it can do and avoid it where it’s useless and those that somehow have found their new religion and saviour and try to make everything about a) those in tech that use AI because they obviously have seen the light and converted and b) those still left in the dark and fighting their new god for made up moral or other reasons.

That’s a fairy tale completely ignoring the third group: technical people that use AI only and exactly where it makes sense. A fairy tale mostly pushed by a few people behind AI development because they already sunk such insane sums into it that they need to believe (and make you believe) that an (human level or more) artificial general intelligence is just around the corner. Just think about it: there people are actually taking about the equivalent of creating new life (new artificial conciousness) to justify their insane investments. And we should talk about the ethical implications of using AI in coding? How is that not a distraction?

Btw… now that I thought about it (and spelled some of it out) I want to walk back to my earlier statement. If AI is actually able to do soon™ what the morons behind it are proposing, that’s indeed the moment to start an ethics discussion. A very complicated one about definitions of conciousness and life… good thing that this will not actually happen.

Sorry but no. Contrary to what some activist types want you to believe it’s not about actual ethical use when we are talking about software.

It’s about LLMs being a tool that should be used where it’s the proper and efficient tool for the job (see: here) and that should definitely not be used where it isn’t the proper tool (vibe coded bullshit) just because some PR guy told you that this tool is your shiny new hammer and everything is a nail now.

When LLMs can produce proper reviewable code use them ffs… alas, they can’t in any case complex enough to actually justify their use.

No, there is an actual explanation.

Telescopes cause near-earth asteroids. Just like tax audits cause tax fraud or covid tests caused case numbers.