Atheist here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Atheism is merely about trusting what's been proven, or has some evidence backing the claim that can be verified without doubt. Being agnostic is being indecisive about everything, even things that are completely made up.

You shouldn't be charged for unauthorized requests to your buckets. Currently if you know any person's bucket name, which is easily discoverable if you know what you're doing, that means you can maliciously rack up their bill just to hurt them financially by spamming it with anonymous requests.

You could sandbox it into a work profile that doesn't have access to your main profile. Storage is completely segregated, and the work profile can be easily disabled when you're not using it.

The best solution is obviously to choose another platform and convince your girlfriend to use that, explaining how this little extra effort on her part to use another app goes a long way with you in terms of appreciation and understanding of a partner's boundaries and comfort zone.

I defended one specific segment which seemed unfairly taken out of context, with support for why I thought so, and remained as objective as I could about it. I never commented on anything else besides that one specific segment, and I never expressed any support for LMG as a whole (full disclosure, I think they've done some awful things they need to be held accountable for). But that makes me some kind of LMG apologist?

Okay. I don't see what else I can say about that accusation.

It doesn't matter if the SLA is realistically reachable or not, it's basically a marketing meme and one of the most common target SLAs in IT ("target" doesn't mean you can actually reach it, you're aiming for it though).

See here: https://lemmy.pub/comment/1046563

"Six nines" is practically a meme in the IT infrastructure and DevOps world, and has nothing at all to do with any kind of sex joke. For years "six nines" has been touted as the pinnacle SLA target for high availability and uptime of services. You'll find references all over the Internet to this SLA from all kind of companies, both big and small, in their marketing.

Examples from a quick and random Google search:

• "NetApp’s six nines guarantee": https://www.netapp.com/blog/asa-san-storage/
• "CenturyLink Targets Six Nines": https://availabilitydigest.com/public_articles/1106/centruylink_six_nines.pdf
• "HPE Get 6-Nines Guarantee [...]": https://www.hpe.com/psnow/doc/4aa5-2846enw

Companies such as Microsoft, Amazon (AWS specifically) and Google tout the "six nines" as their HA SLA in loads of their marketing, and it's easy to find.

I could go on forever but that should give you an idea. You can read more about "The Rule Of Nines" here if you're interested: https://vastdata.com/blog/the-rule-of-nines

My point is, this isn't a figure they made up for a sex joke. It's a very real SLA that is explicitly touted in IT marketing all over the Internet and has been for some time.

So where does the "innuendo" come from then? The uninformed viewer's own imagination, I think. Because from my perspective, I just see an IT guy trying to brag about how he's going to ensure his infrastructure reaches a slick "six nines" target for high availability, snapping his fingers and showboating the camera in pride about it.

It's up to the viewer to interpret what they see, of course, but it's also wrong once you know what the true intention more likely was to continue to insist that it was something else entirely. If anything, what he really meant is inconclusive, I personally think it's a real stretch to assume it was a sex joke.

To be fair to Luke, in regards to the "six nines" comment in the video that a lot of people think is part of a sex joke (and how the video is framing it), in the proper context he was talking about IT infrastructure and this comment actually refers to a target for high availability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_availability

99.9999% availability (ie. uptime) = "six nines"

He was basically saying that they're setting a target for higher availability of their infrastructure, because it's been unstable at times, causing staff frustration and delaying certain workflows.

I can't blame a lot of average people who don't work in any sort of IT field for confusing it with the "69" sex position (wondering what the heck "six nines" means), but that's not at all what he was making reference to.

I'm not at all defending anything else in relation to this debacle besides this unfair portrayal of this particular snippet.

EDIT: Just wanted to add, I think it's pretty sad that pistol fingers and a wink these days apparently must mean you're making a sex joke (or are trying to offend people in some other way). As a kid I remember this gesture being used to "act cool". We did it all the time back then, and it was all in fun. Luke's from my generation, so maybe he thought the same, or maybe we didn't get the memo that this gesture is off-limits now.

Same here, I've never had this problem, ever. I don't even get how it's possible to not know where your files are being saved if you are the least bit techsavvy.

I'll update to a newer Postgres version and report back. It would be nice to know what the minimum supported version is, maybe that should be added to the documentation.

EDIT: Upgrading to Postgres 15 resolved my issue, but not without some pain since the migration scripts had already tried to run on my Postgres 13 database. So after dumping the 13 database, I had to make some modifications after the fact to satisfy the migration scripts. It was a pretty janky process but I seem to be in a good place now.

I would highly advise communicating to people that they should upgrade past Postgres 13 before trying to upgrade Lemmy to 0.18.3 or higher, or you're gonna have a bad time.

I just don't trust these tools to write code as efficiently as I can, knowing they are just backed by LLMs. If I have to spend my time vetting what they spit out to ensure correctness, efficiency, security, etc, then I might as well just do it myself from the beginning. I'm sure some find these tools useful and timesaving, but they're not for me.

I just stood up a selfhosted Invidious instance the other day, and I replaced YouTube ReVanced with Clipious (an Invidious client for Android) on my phone. No ads, SponsorBlock built-in, no need for a YouTube/Google account to create subscriptions, playlists, etc. And it's highly performant since I run it behind a reverse proxy with some custom caching configuration for things like thumbnail images, static assets, etc.

Clipious can also be installed on an Android TV (has an actual Android TV interface). I'm going to end up installing it on mine, but I'm also using SmartTubeNext at the moment, which does require a YouTube/Google account for subscriptions, playlists, etc, but does have no ads, built-in SponsorBlock, and a slew of other great features. I'll be keeping both around, since I do sometimes like to cast to my TV, and SmartTubeNext allows for that (Clipious does not, at least at this time).

Unless YouTube somehow starts dynamically splicing in ads as part of the actual video stream, there's always going to be a way to block ads, unless they do something pretty elaborate. But that's probably not worth the effort on their end to go that far, since the vast, vast majority of people won't know what to do to get around that, nor will they probably care enough to try. But I think it's clear that DNS blocking using services such as AdGuard Home, PiHole, etc, are going to become less effective over time.

A spike in subscribers for a period doesn't necessarily mean they're making more money than before, even if the number of new signups offsets the cancellations.

I used to pay for the Premium plan, sharing with my parents, but downgraded to the Basic plan. My parents ended up getting their own Basic plan. So a single account essentially split into two, but the sum of both payments is now less than what it used to be for the single account. So Netflix gained an extra subscriber, but is now making less money from that pool of users.

It's totally possible that some number of these new signups consist of people who did the same thing.

Basically, seeing a spike in new signups isn't itself a measure of success. What matters is how much money they're bringing in monthly going forward compared to previously.