ArchAengelus
Uh, I might be wrong here, but isn’t the whole purpose of split tunneling to allow you to send only necessary traffic through a given tunnel? Then the rest of your traffic goes whatever the default path is?
This seems more like a feature than a CVE. Maybe I’m missing something.
In this context, yes, because of the cancellation on the fractions when you recover.
1/3 x 3 = 1
I would say without the context, there is an infinitesimal difference. The approximation solution above essentially ignores the problem which is more of a functional flaw in base 10 than a real number theory issue
Wait til your table with all the checksums gets messed up on an “older” btrfs install. Happened to me on a VM because I didn’t know copy-on-write should be disabled for large frequently partially updated files. It also slowed that VMs IO down a lot.
Like most file systems, BTRFS is great if you know the edge cases. I recently moved to ZFS on my new work system, which has been a great change in terms of in-line snapshots and the like.
If EXT4 meets your needs, that’s awesome. If you understand how to use a different FS well or are willing to learn (and risk), I would also encourage other options as well.
I feel your pain man. Our university of 40k people did the same thing “from on high” and we ran into the same problems in our lab. We only had 4 million files to move into a Teams share. Which, btw, takes about 5 weeks to “sync” to OneDrive, which is how we were expected to replace our workflow instead of a shared network storage drive our lab owned
q_q
The register simply says “nothing to see here” 😂
No matter how good the protocol or client encryption, your privacy is only as good as your own physical security for the device in question.
Given that if you lose your private key, there is no recovery, I would be surprised if there were real back doors in the clients. Maybe unintentional ways to leak data, but you can go look for yourself: https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android
They have one for each client.