No, my argument is that Russia’s and Russians’ actions are consistent across multiple statehoods and governments, making any attempt at redeeming them by shifting blame to a specific government an example of mental gymnastics.

Only actual attempts at taking responsibility for what Russia has been doing should count. And frankly, those Russians that do take responsibility—many of whom already got disappeared—will get erased from history and from possible future definition of „Russia” if Russia is not taken seriously to be your enemy here and now.

When UK refuses to return the riches they stole, we just say it like that.

When Belgia refuse to acknowledge genocide in Congo, we just say it.

When we talk about France losing colonial wars in Vietnam and Algeria, we say it.

When Israel starves an entire population in openly advertised genocide, we say it.

When we talk about Japanese massacres in China, we just say it.

When we talk about Chinese genocide of Uighurs, we just say it.

When Canada systematically oppresses indigenous population, we just say it.

But when Russia commits genocide and openly promises hellfire on the heads of those who would resist, don’t we dare say it!

This is pure mental gymnastics.

The fact that you straight ignored the core of my argument doesn’t add it any credibility either.

Russian mafia regime is Russia. Both its genocidal conquest policies and the tradition of subservience to a central authority predate the word “россия” and are consistent across governments and states.

The idea that wars of conquest and genocide Russia throws itself in since before we formulated the definition of a word „genocide” are somehow not about Russia would be the winner of every mental gymnastics competition for years to come.

I’d probably add that for something like nextcloud granted scopes can be an „orthogonal”–for the lack of a better word–subset of requested scopes.

The set of requestable scopes has to be defined by the system itself, not its specific configuration. E.g. „files:manage”, „talk:manage”, „mail:read” are all general capabilities the system offers.

However, as a user I can have a local configuration that adds granularity to the grants I issue. E.g.: „files:manage in specific folders” or „mail:read for specific domains or groups only” are user trust statements that fit into the capability matrix but add an additional and preferably invisible layer of access control.

It’s a fairly rare feature in the wild and is a potential UX pitfall, but it can be useful as an advanced option on the grant page, or as a separate access control for issued grants.

https://oauth.net/articles/authentication/

That aside, why is nextcloud asking for scopes from remote API in the diagram? What is drawn on the diagram has little to do with OAuth scopes, but rather looks like an attempt to wrap ACL repository access into a new vocabulary.

Scopes issued by the OAuth authorization server can be hidden entirely. The issuer doesn’t hold any obligation to share them with authorized party since they are dedicated for internal use and can be propagated via invisible or opaque means.

I really can’t figure out what’s going on with that diagram.

As a Ruby fan having a blast with Elixir, where the hell is anything BEAM related?

The compass is truly political.

Is king riding barefoot?

Yeah, had to dive in myself.

The answer is no, they can’t. You need to pass /dev/kvm and /dev/net/tun in a composefile for a reason.

There’s no „windows in docker”, but rather „handy windows vm orchestrator with nice UI in a container”. A bit of a mouthful.

My viewing history can legally drink in US in a year. What do you mean „guess”?

You’re jumping ahead of the train. Draft can be edited multiple times before it becomes law. If it becomes law.

So no, this is not anywhere close to being resolved.

After

Addendum: please stop promoting Medusa as a source. They are disgusting fuckers.

Googling at least until fairly recently meant „I consulted an index of Internet”. It is a means to get to the bit of information.

Asking ChatGPT is like asking a well-behaved parrot in the library and believing every word it says instead of reading the actual book the librarian would point you towards.

Live action at that

And then there’s hyperemparhy. Alice tells about getting a paper cut a year ago, and for a few seconds Bob feels like his guts are being pulled out.

• ssh to remote, forwarding some remote port to your local ssh port (-R)
• ssh from remote through the exposed port, starting socks proxy in the process (-D)
• use socks proxy explicitly or find some tool that can route the traffic into it

Similar approach can be used to establish VPN tunnel with no encryption (ssh already provides that), routing everything but your ssh connection through it.

• ssh to remote, reverse forwarding your VPN-over-tcp server’s listening port
• establish vpn connection on remote, route everything but your ssh connection through the newly established interface

It will be wasteful, but it will work.

It’s not about business optimization, it’s about not having to defer to someone’s knowledge from the position of power.

AI bubble makes so much sense when you start looking at it this way.

Gl.iNet is a great value router, but if you want to do anything really interesting, it won’t do.

I have Slate AX chugging along, and have been eyeing teklager boxes to do actual routing, with slate as an access point.