• 3 Posts
  • 1.82K Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 18th, 2023
  • NaibofTabr@infosec.pubtomemes@lemmy.world•A homelabber/sysadmin midlife crisisEnglish
    1·
    2 hours ago

    I always recommend buying enterprise grade hardware for this type of thing, for two reasons:

    1. Consumer-grade hardware is just that - it’s not built for long-term, constant workloads (that is, server workloads). It’s not built for redundancy. The Dell PowerEdge has hotswappable drive bays, a hardware RAID controller, dual CPU sockets, 8 RAM slots, dual built-in NICs, the iDrac interface, and redundant hot-swappable PSUs. It’s designed to be on all the time, reliably, and can be remotely managed.

    2. For a lot of people who are interested in this, a homelab is a path into a technology career. Working with enterprise hardware is better experience.

    Consumer CPUs won’t perform server tasks like server CPUs. If you want to run a server, you want hardware that’s built for server workloads - stability, reliability, redundancy.

    So I guess yes, it is like buying an old truck? Because you want to do work, not go fast.

  • NaibofTabr@infosec.pubtomemes@lemmy.world•A homelabber/sysadmin midlife crisisEnglish
    1·
    3 hours ago

    Hmm, I don’t have direct experience with ThinkServers, but what I see on eBay looks like standard ATX hardware… which is not really what you want in a server.

    The Dell motherboard has dual CPU sockets and 8 RAM slots. The PSUs are not the common ATX desktop format because there are 2 of them and they are hot swappable. This is basically a rack server repacked into a desktop tower case, not an ATX desktop with a server CPU socket.

  • NaibofTabr@infosec.pubtoAsk Lemmy@lemmy.world•Is it normal to feel attacked and attack when argue on the internet?English
    2·
    9 hours ago

    Yeah, and if you wrote some feedback to a magazine article, the editor might write a response to you and publish both in next month’s issue, but that would be the end of it. No one who read your feedback as published in the magazine could respond to you directly - it’s not really a conversation, it’s slow and limited by the format. You could write another message to the editor responding to their response, but that wouldn’t get published in the following issue so at most it would just be a one-to-one communication.

    This is very different from writing a post on an internet message board and getting twenty responses from twenty different people in a span of minutes. The closest past equivalent I can think of is literal soapboxing, where you go stand on a street and talk at people walking by, and they can immediately respond to you if they choose - but then that’s in person, face-to-face.

  • NaibofTabr@infosec.pubtoAsk Lemmy@lemmy.world•Is it normal to feel attacked and attack when argue on the internet?English
    8·
    18 hours ago

    Yes…

    It’s easier to be an asshole to words than to people.

    xkcd #438 (June 18, 2008)

    Personally, I think that we (humans) haven’t really socially adjusted to digital communications technology, its speed or brevity, or the relatively short attention span it tends to encourage. We spent millennia communicating by talking to each other, face to face, and we’re still kind of bad at that but we do mostly try to avoid directly provoking each other in person. Writing gave us a means to communicate while separated, but in the past that meant writing a letter, a process that is generally slow and thoughtful. In contrast, commenting on social media is usually done so quickly that there isn’t much thoughtfulness exhibited.

    We’ve had three-ish? decades exchanging messages on the internet, having conversations with complete strangers, and being exposed to dozens, hundreds, even thousands of other people reading and responding to what we write… less than one human lifetime. We’re not equipped for this, mentally, emotionally, historically. Social and cultural norms haven’t adapted yet.

  • NaibofTabr@infosec.pubtoPeople Twitter@sh.itjust.works•None. Suffer.English
    221·
    1 day ago

    Essentially, verifiability (the token exists on the blockchain), de-duplication (each token can only exist once on the blockchain), and proof of ownership (only one account number can be associated with each token on the blockchain). There’s nothing wrong with this idea in a technical sense and it could be useful for some things.

    But… the transaction process is computationally expensive. For the transaction to be trustworthy, many nodes on the blockchain network must process the same transaction, which creates a whole bunch of issues around network scaling and majority control and real-world resource usage (electricity, computer hardware, network infrastructure, cooling, etc).

    And beyond that, the nature of society and economics created a community around this unregulated financial market that was filled with… well, exactly the kind of people you’d expect would be most interested in an unregulated financial market - scammers, speculative investors, thieves, illegal bankers, exploitatitive gambling operators, money launderers, and criminals looking to get paid without the government noticing.

    The technology can solve some interesting problems around verifying that a particular digital file is unique/original (which can be useful, because it’s extremely easy to make copies of digital information) but it creates a long list of other problems as a side effect.