The above post says it has support for Ollama, so I don’t think this is the case… but the instructions in the Readme do make it seem like it’s dependent on OpenAI.

stuck with the GPL forever

If you accept a patch and don’t have the ability to relicense it, you can remove it and re-license the new codebase. You can even re-implement changes made by the patch in many cases, whether those changes are bug fixes or new features.

If you re-implement the change, you do need to ensure this is done in a way that doesn’t cause it to become a derivative work, but it’s much easier if you have copyright to 99% of a work already and only need to re-implement 1% or so. If you’ve received substantial community contributions and the community is opposed to relicensing, it will be much harder to do so.

A clean room implementation - where the person rewriting the code doesn’t look at the original code, and is only given a description of the functionality - which can include a detailed description of the algorithm - is the most defensible way to perform such a rewrite and relicense, but it’s not the only option.

You should generally consult an attorney when relicensing and shouldn’t just do it casually. But a single patch certainly doesn’t mean you’re locked in forever.

Are you saying that NAT isn’t effectively a firewall or that a NAT firewall isn’t effectively a firewall?

Is there a way to use symlinks instead? I’d think it would be possible, even with Docker - it would just require the torrent directory to be mounted read-only in the same location in every Docker container that had symlinks to files on it.

If they do the form correctly, then it’s just an extra step for you to confirm. One flow I’ve seen that would accomplish this is:

1. You enter your address into a form that can be auto-filled
2. You submit the address
3. If the address validates, the site saves the form and shows you the address in a more readable format. You can click Edit to make changes.
4. If the address doesn’t validate, the site displays a modal asking you to confirm the address. If another address they were able to look up looks similar, it suggests you use that instead. It’s one click to continue editing, to use the suggested address, or to use what you originally entered.

That said, if you’re regularly seeing the wrong address pop up it may be worth submitting a request to get your address added to the database they use. That process will differ depending on your location and the address verification service(s) used by the sites that are causing issues. If you’re in the US, a first step is to confirm that the USPS database has your address listed correctly, as their database is used by some downstream address verification services like “Melissa.” I believe that requires a visit to your local post office, but you may be able to fix it by calling your region’s USPS Address Management System office.

It’s more likely that this is being done to either:

• Evade hiring restrictions
• Interview on someone else’s behalf

Depending on setup this can be true with Jellyfin, too. I have a domain registered, use dynamic DNS, and have Traefik direct a subdomain to my Jellyfin server. My mobile clients are configured using that. My local clients use the local static IP.

If my internet goes down, my mobile clients can’t connect, even on the LAN.

Good point!

If OP is hourly, those 3 hours should be billed as work - probably under a generic HR-related category if one is available.

If OP is salaried exempt, then this would fall under “doing any work at all” (all that’s needed to be paid for the day) and if sick time is tracked by day and not by hour, then OP doesn’t need to use one. If it’s tracked hourly then OP should make sure to only use 5 sick hours (or less, depending on how long the work-related conversations took) and depending on employer policies may not need to use any sick time at all.

This also cut into the time OP could have been using to rest. It would be very reasonable for OP to need an extra day to recover, as a result.

Don’t forget to file an expense report for the co-pay. It’s a business expense that was required by company policy, as communicated by HR, and is therefore the company’s responsibility to cover.

Generally, usage of the term “gentrification” refers to the improvement of neighborhoods - or other places where people live, like apartment complexes - and, due to increased cost of living, the displacement of the people who used to live there. Displacement of less wealthy current residents when gentrification occurs is so common that it’s implied. If it weren’t, people wouldn’t have such low opinions of gentrification.

If a forest has been gentrified, therefore, then - if you interpret “gentrified” in the same way - it follows that people who have been living there have been displaced. And since those people were living in a forest - not in a cabin in a forest - they’re necessarily homeless. Since OP didn’t say that they were building houses or apartments in the forest, that would mean that the wealthier people who displaced them were also homeless.

Since the context was another commenter calling “gentrified forest” a cursed phrase, I don’t think I’m alone in thinking that.

On the other hand it is a conduit for censorship. If an admin doesn’t like what you post on another instance, then they can censor you everywhere.

Such a user can

• Create an account on a different instance
• Spin up their own instance

You should look up the definition of “gentrification.” There are a ton of options that don’t suggest that the homeless people in the forest are being forced out and replaced with wealthier homeless people.

Maybe “commercialized” would be a better word choice? Alternatively, “developed” or “sanitized?”

Apparently there’s a vulnerability with sending messages with images in them and “she” might be logging people’s IP addresses through that.

If the images are hosted on your instance, this wouldn’t be relevant. If they’re links to an image hosted somewhere, this is possible, but there’d be a lot of noise and not much value. To link accounts to IPs the URLs would themselves need to be different

I checked the urls to the images in my PMs and they’re all hosted on Lemmy.

Further, “Whether another user actually downloaded the content that Meta made available” through torrenting “is irrelevant,” the authors alleged. “Meta ‘reproduced’ the works as soon as it made them available to other peers.”

Is there existing case law for what making something “available” means? If I say “Alright, I’ll send you this book if you want, just ask,” have I made it available? What if, when someone asks, I don’t actually send them anything?

I’m thinking outside of contexts of piracy and torrenting, to be clear - like if a software license requires you to make any changed versions available to anyone who uses the software. Can you say it’s available if your distribution platform is configured to prevent downloads?

If not, then why would it be any different when torrenting?

Meta ‘reproduced’ the works as soon as it made them available to other peers.

The argument that a copyrighted work has been reproduced when “made available,” when “made available” has such a low bar is also perplexing. If I post an ad on Craigslist for the sale of the Mona Lisa, have I reproduced it?

What if it was for a car?

I’m selling a brand new 2026 Alfa Romeo 4E, DM me your offers. I’ve now “reproduced” a car - come at me, MPAA.

OP: “Zen 5 CPU”

You: “Unpatched Zen 1 through Zen 4 CPUs are vulnerable”

You: Is it vulnerable?

???

Where did I contest your point?

I downgraded Firefox once last year, but after the next major version a couple weeks later, I was able to upgrade again. Never had to downgrade it before that, though.

I forget why, though. I think it was a pretty niche issue.

The president won [the] popular vote

Only if you ignore the huge amounts of voter suppression. If you don’t, then he lost the popular vote and the electoral vote - netting 45.8% of the popular vote to Kamala’s 52.7%, and he earned at most (and probably less than) 252 electoral votes to Kamala’s 286.

If you’re in the US, automatic is fine. Manuals make up like 1 percent of new cars and maybe 4% of used cars here. It doesn’t hurt to know how to drive one, but it doesn’t benefit you much, either. I drove a manual once, but it was a rental in another country. I’ve never been faced with needing to - or even having the opportunity to - drive a manual in the US.

However, learning on a manual does make it easier to understand certain ways of how cars work, even on automatics (less so on CVTs), so if you like understanding things more, I recommend manual even in the US. You can still get that understanding driving automatics, though - just a bit more effort.

Outside the US, most places I know of manual is the default. If manuals make up even 30 percent or so of cars where you live, I strongly suggest learning to drive one.

I can’t guess where your interests lie

OP does say they have a boyfriend