The unfortunate reality is that some people will buy anything that expires, on the remote chance someone might be interested. If they’re set on doing that there’s nothing you can do, they will grab it and block it for at least one more year.

IMHO the best thing you can do is nothing. I mean nothing beyond discreetly checking the domain state in whois. Don’t inquire explicitly about the domain. Don’t use the WHOIS form on websites you don’t trust to exploit such queries into grabbing domains themselves.

You can use whois from the command line (best way). Alternatively, the TLD registry will have a WHOIS form on their official website.

If you don’t generate any apparent interest they will eventually let the domain lapse. Check back a year from now.

The problem is that the main container can (and usually does) rely on other layers, and you may need to pull updates for those too. Updating one app can take 5-10 individual pulls.

How do you avoid interaction if it’s being done automatically by your machine when you open up a print dialog, and if malicious servers can use the same names as legit printers?

You don’t have to install drivers or CUPS on client devices. Linux and Android support IPP out of the box. Just make sure your CUPS on the server is multicasting to the LAN.

You may need to install Avahi on the server if it’s not already (that’s what does the actual multicasting). The printer(s) should then auto magically appear in the print dialogs on apps on Linux clients and in the printer service on Android.

On Linux it may take a few seconds to appear after you turn it on and may not appear when it’s off. On Android it shows up anyways as long as the CUPS server is on.

From what I understand OP’s images aren’t the same image, just very similar.

Any PC can do that, it’s called “status after power off” or something like that.

Isn’t it fourth?

Mozilla has already shipped strict privacy mode by default in recent versions of Firefox so they’re already a leg up on this.

Google is currently trying to transition people to its own proprietary method of tracking (where the browser itself tracks you) so they would love it if third party cookies were no longer usable for that.

Mozilla has also added a direct tracking feature (anonimized) to Firefox btw. Not sure what their agenda is.

Websites are irrelevant, if third party cookies stop working in major browsers there’s no point in setting them anymore, they’ll be ignored.

It’s impossible to tell how meaningful Backblaze’s numbers are because we don’t know the global failure rate for each model they test, so we can’t calculate the statistical significance. Also there are other factors involved like the age of the drives and the type of workload they were used for.

buying more reliable devices can definitely save you time and headache in the future by having to deal with failures less frequently.

That’s a recipe for sorrow. Don’t waste time on “reliability” research, just plan for failure. All HDDs fail. Assume they will and backup or replicate your data.

Any difference you personally experience between the three big brands is meaningless. For any failed HDD you have there’s going to be another person who swears by them and has had five of them running for 10 years without a hitch.

But whatever’s cheaper in your area and stop worrying. Your reliability should be assured by backups anyway not by betting on a single drive. Any drive can fail.

For home setup you don’t care because you should have either redundancy or backup (preferably both).

So that typically means buying the cheapest HDD that’s new and from one of the established brands (Seagate, Western Digital, Toshiba) that’s in the correct size for your needs, and you can afford to buy it at least twice (for the aforementioned backups or redundancy), or even thrice, and replace as soon as needed.

In other words there’s no need to speculate on how long an HDD will last, you simply replace it when needed.

Please also note that HDDs over 10 TB are starting to get increasingly replaced with enterprise models which run hotter and make more noise.

I doubt they intend to mine it. For the Russian state is easier to acquire Bitcoin by hacking wallets than mining, and the plebs can’t afford the electricity.

Trading is trading and they’d be risking sanctions whether they take payment with Swift or Bitcoin.

This is not a new problem, .internal is just a new gimmick but people have been using .lan and whatnot for ages.

Certificates are a web-specific problem but there’s more to intranets than HTTPS. All devices on my network get a .lan name but not all of them run a web app.

7 was actually surprisingly well optimized. It ran OK on an office PC with 512 MB of RAM and a 512 MHz CPU.

You wouldn’t use it like that because by that time apps like browsers and office were starting to feel restricted by that little RAM to the point you could only run either or. But the OS itself stayed out of the way as much as possible, and if you gave it just a little more RAM (like 1 GB) suddenly you had a usable office machine.

But you only have two kidneys, how will you buy a third Mac?

Macs are outrageously priced for the hardware you get.

Non-Apple laptops can be just as reliable and last just as long nowadays, and you get to upgrade them at a fraction of the cost. Actually I should say you get to upgrade them, period.

As opposed to what, the domain certificate? Which can’t be air-gapped because it needs to be used by services and reverse proxies.

If you mean properly signed certificates (as opposed to self-signed) you’ll need a domain name, and you’ll need your LAN DNS server to resolve a made-up subdomain like lan.domain.com. With that you can get a wildcard Let’s Encrypt certificate for *.lan.domain.com and all your https://whatever.lan.domain.com URLs will work normally in any browser (for as long as you’re on the LAN).

One day Proton will retire their bridge and there will be a lot of Pikachu faces.

Unfortunately all the volume-based email providers I know (Purely, MXroute, Migadu) are one or two-person operations. Doesn’t stop them from being excellent, of course.

I wish the volume-based pricing model was more popular but unfortunately very few people know about it, and is course the large providers prefer to charge by account or add all kinds of artificial limitations because they make much more money that way. Having multiple mailboxes for the same domain costs the provider nothing and yet you get charged per mailbox.