Pika

mine is this way as well. it will count inputs as setting the clock and if you put an invalid time in has a hissy fit and isn’t clear what it is asking of you. The amount of times my grandfather has tried to use it after losing power and got frusterated because he was trying to cook something and the clock wanted to set the time as something stupid like 30:22 or something like that is annoying.

mine has a way to change the clock to 24h and the ability to calibrate the hot keys, but sadly doesn’t seem to have a sound control.

I’m not PC but, one benefit of using a central server for syncthing is an always on backup that doesn’t require another client device to be on, it also allows for easier creation of new shares.

For example, with syncthing you can set the “servers” client device to auto approve/accept any shares that are to trusted devices, then when you get a new device, instead of needing to add that device to every device you share on the syncthing network, you only need to add that device to the server and then you can have your other clients connect to the servers share instead of device to device. It’s easier. You can also configure the shares on the server to use encryption by default too, since you don’t really ever need to actually see the files on the server since it’s basically a install and forget style client.

As an example of what I mean:

I have 10 different devices that run syncthing, 9 clients and a “server” client. these clients are not always on at the same time, and as such when I change a file, the files can become desynced and cause issues with conflicts. By having a centralized server, as long as the server is on(it always is) and client itself is online, it’s going to always sync. I don’t need to worry about file conflicts between my clients as the server should always have the newest file.

Then for example say my phone died. Instead of needing to readd every seperate client that the phone needs to share with to the new device, I only need to add the phone as a trusted source on the “server” client via the webui -> click share to that device on every share the phone needs, and then remap the shares to the proper directories on the mobile device. this is vs having to add every device to the phone, and the phone to every device it needs access to ontop of reconfiguring all the shares. It’s simpler, but fair warning does cause a single point of failure if the server goes offline.

yea I have the machine backed up in case this happens. I have noticed that its a mess UI wise. But ipfire doesn’t seem to be stable. every few months it’ll randomly kill itself which will take everything on the network down until i manually restart the machine and then force tell it a new DNS server. It’s something I’ve never managed to resolve on the machine, and I don’t seem to have that issue with my test network with OPNsense.

I’m in the process of switching from ipfire to opnsense myself.

I hate how bloaty opnsense is at first glance but it has so much more control so once I copy my current config I’ll be leaving ipfire in the dust.

I have never thought of doing this. That’s now going on my server.

THIS NEEDS TO BE MAINSTREAM.

There is very little reason that with the digital behemoths that microwaves are now, that a simple “sound off” setting can’t be done.

I would also love a “sound off for this cycle” option, but that might be being too needy

my grandfather cant even hear the beeping, let alone if the microwave is running.

I had forgotten about the set UID flag. That might actually fix the issue altogether without having to do a hard-coded sudo path.

And would mean I wouldn’t have to double check the commans to make sure that there’s no destructive subcommands that could be done as well.

I might try that later, thanks!

I have been really trying to avoid implementing it into the user session, it requires superuser to run the commands and I don’t like the concept of hardcoding sudo paths using nopasswd

But I probably will end up having to do something similar in the user environment.

edit: Now that I think about it, I could probably just make the command path to the network command be authorized as no password on any user as I don’t really see a situation where the user logged in shouldn’t be able to manipulate the network it’s connected to.

I Actually had attempted to do that via a service, It didn’t work. And at that point, I had spent a few hours trying to get it connected to the internet alone so I was already frustrated and was happy enough that it was able to at least connect again. Telling myself I’ll go back to it later. Guess what never happend 🦊

When I bother testing it again, I will attempt to fix the service for it. Although in a perfect world it would be nice to have it remember passwords that way the startup is just having it connect to the already saved network, but I don’t believe that’s going to get fixed any time soon.

You might be right and binding it to a key binding may end up being the easier route.

agreed! I just wish that I didn’t need to do 6 commands to actually connect to wifi!

agreed. thats where I went wrong with my poor ee-pc. I went 3 years without updating it and it worked like a charm, then decided to try and update it. every source was dead, including the keyring. Manually fixed the ring, half the packages failed to update even with valid sources. Had to disable all package verification.

I then made the mistake of “Well surly a fresh install will be easier than trying to fix this broken mess”… I have not had a functional wifi management service since. None of them support the system anymore as the arch was discontinued officially a few years ago, and the only way I can connect to wifi now is via command line without network memory or saving.

Yeah, I had never heard of it, I generally stray away from video based mediums, but I am a little surprised I didn’t come across articles for it, I can only assume that none of the creators I followed covered it.

Although it was kind of funny to see the beginning of that second video, him still trying to do damage control, it looked for a second like he was going to agree that he had screwed up that install because he said it was 100% his fault and then he Backtracked and said that it wasn’t his fault and I’m like so close lol.

I have never seen that page before, but that’s hilarious. I somewhat hope that he did that as a demonstration of, hey, someone may do this because it’s hard for me to wrap my head around someone who uses a computer for a living, doing something like that.

Being said, I think that prompt went above and beyond what was needed. At some point you just need to let the user touch the hot stove top… It stated what it was going to do, stated that it was going to be potentially dangerous and unlikely what the user wanted, and then reiterated that it was core essential packages needed for it to run… I don’t know what else they could do there. I would definitely be against adding further restrictions though. If he was willing to type that in, I don’t know what would stop him from doing that, to be honest, Maybe a…" I acknowledge this would break my system…" instead of it being yes-do as I say. But I don’t know.

Being said hard agree there is zero reason that a package like steam should be able to uninstall your desktop., That was definitely a bug or a misconfiguration with the steam package. That was unexcusable. I just think they gave more than enough information of what that would do and he did it anyway.

I firmly agree at some point the ends don’t justify the means and Android has definitely got to that point with unsigned packages prior to making this change., And I don’t think the ends justify the means to implement such a system. And I definitely think there is ulterior motives for implementing it.

I had thought about it when i was thinking of getting an EV prior. The answer is “yes”, technically, but I didn’t find it cost effective to do so. I don’t own the building, or pay power utility, its bundled in my rent, and whatever power solution I installed would need to run roughly 150-200 ft feet across a lawn and part of an active driveway to get to my designated parking area(I had considered over or under but that also adds cost). Said parking area has already been designated as non-negotiable as the closer parking is strictly for the landlord’s wife who has mobility issues(fully valid). On top of that I have been instructed to not put a constant load on the outdoor outlet, it according to them has high wear on it and they are worried about the risk of putting something constant on it because it used to run as an input for a generator that ran higher than what the line was actually rated for(old building, was before the requirement of a bypass switch, they used to just kill the main breaker before turning the generator on to prevent backfeed, more dangerous but it was how it was done) and almost burned it out, so any solution would be either rewiring the outdoor outlet line from the fusebox on, or installing a dedicated charger line for it and then running it across prior distance. (which I had at one point thought about)

technically possible, but I don’t think it’s cost effective to do something like that, especially considering even if given permission, it’s for a property I don’t own and don’t know how long I would be living here.

Yea the argument stated works better for rooted environments than rootless environments or sideloading.

In a non-root scenario, you would need to specify a few permissions to give a keylogger that amount of access. I think that a big issue is people not understanding that there is a difference between a rooted device or root installed app, and a sideloaded application.

Just because you have a non-google device or a rooted device != you have a compromised device. Applications aren’t going to magically install running as root, every rom worth their salt keeps it a clear isolation between the layers, and some roms don’t even allow you to use the root environment after installing it.

In your standard google phone install? A keylogger wouldn’t be able to be installed without enabling an accessibility permission. It’s not like you can just “oops I just sideloaded a keylogger haha silly me” like described. Both google installed and side loaded applications would require prompting a warning page that very clearly states it allows logging of the screen for the logging part of it to work.

Lets be real though, currently they already have to blow through 4 other warnings about installing unsigned APK and enabled the browser or file manager to be able to install applications. It’s almost certain if they are that far deep/commited, they are going to call the scammer back if the scammer left a number.

Yes this might allow for a time delay where the scammers number could be disabled if reported by enough people, or someone else to be like “yo this is a scam” if they mentioned it but, I don’t think this is as secure as they are saying it will be. The target audience for this is very unlikely to be thwarted by a time delay. Plus, the scammer will make some excuse about how the warning is just a safety percaucion and doesn’t need to be followed as this is a normal usage of the toggle, and then have them call back after the delay is done.

For clarification: the target audience doesn’t know about the scam, and all they care about is that someone is seemingly willing to assist with an issue or problem they have. Said person knows the solution and they just have to wait for the timer to be done to be able to do said solution. They have no reason of telling others about it (unless they were complaining about googles time delay) as they already got someone who is seemingly able to assist.

Honestly, having to have the user type “I agree that I have verified the application i am trying to install is genuine and not a fraudulent app” or a listbox of checkmarks to toggle in order to enable it would be far more efficient for this case.

Hell take the example image the article on the dev page has and make it into toggles instead and it would work far better than a timer does.

yea those charts can be deceiving at times though , charge finder said I had one within 35 minutes I looked at what it was, the station it said is the old town house, and that’s been disabled/damaged(the charger not the building) due to vandalism since mid covid and was never fixed. The other option shown is the high-school but it’s restricted to students and Staff only and is parking pass enforced. I could likely abuse it via visitor pass, but that’s still 40 minutes to get there, time spent charging and then 40 minutes back. They had a town vote to install a community one a few years back at a town meeting but, there wasn’t enough local support for it to get on the official vote.

Being said, it must be nice having the luxury of charging it at home. I don’t have such luxury. If I could I would have jumped on an EV for my last car when I had to upgrade 5 or 6 years ago

not PC but, I mean I can tell you the state I live in the closest EV charger is an hour away if that helps your data set on infrastructure knowledge. That’s my primary reason I have no current interest in EV. I firmly agree infrastructure is not there at this time for it in this state. Maybe in the future it will but until I can easily charge my car either at work or without an hour detour it’s a hard not happening for me.

being said, it has gotten better over the last few years so maybe soon?