Ooops

And for the ones following this from far away… How much corruption… I mean election manipulation… no… “completely innocent district restructuring” happened before to make that possible?

That’s probably the ugly method but as it’s my personal device I didn’t see a problem adding such things to /etc/environment

PS: You should be able to also set this when starting i3 with “QT_QPA_PLATFORMTHEME=qt5ct i3”…

… but will instantly fabricate reasons why the car will be needed at least 5 times a day anyway.

It builds the kernel module for your specific kernel. It’s not different from the nvidia package, that’s just the same thing pre-build for the default kernel (in fact if you install both nvidia-dkms will build the module locally, then realize the exact same thing it just build is already there and move on…).

the correct way to fix it is to first do a system update -Syu and afterwards install the new package

Or you just do it as one step in general: pacman -Syu

You didn’t upgrade before installing. -y updates the package list to match the mirror, -u updates your system (and you should not use them separately, so if in doubt always use -yu).

So when you try to install (without synchronising the package list first) your system looks at it’s outdated package list, then requests files that are no longer on the mirror as they are already on a higher version.

There’s one caveat here: The UEFI specification doesn’t strictly require the ability to handle more than one EFI System Partition on a drive, so some simply don’t. So this “use a separate boot partition”-method might fail on some computers that just don’t recognize a second ESP on the same drive and only surely works with a whole separate drive for Linux.

Then you should probably point out to OP which VPNs are independently audited and not keeping data or not operating in any country requiring access by law enforcement. As everything else would totally defeat your “but government actors”-argument from above.

Yes, given OPs question (triggered by VPN Ads even) and way of asking there is no reason to believe in any scenario where a state-sponsored actor “on the same network” is intercepting data (like “transmitted passwords”) because it’s only secured by https. That’s “can I login safely from a public wifi?”-level.

As you seem to be passionate about these security issues I’m sure that you are familiar with the concept of threat assesment first. Do you believe that a random user asking publically about information seen in advertising is the target of government-level actors wanting to steal his login passwords used on https sites and that breaking the encryption is the easiest measure here?

As I read this question “high-layer sifting by ISPs” (and providers of open wifi) is exactly the threat scenario here.

But encrypting already encrypted HTTPS data is largely irrelevant (for that simplified analogy) unless you don’t trust the encryption in the first place. So the relevant part is hiding the HTTPS headers (your addresses from above) from your the network providing your connection (and the receiving end) by encrypting them.

Unless of course you want to point out that a VPN also encrypts HTTP… which most people have probably not used for years, in fact depending on browser HTTP will get refused by default nowadays.

Non-Internet analogy:

You communicate via snail mail with someone. Both ends know the address of each other. So does the postal service delivering your mail. Everyone opening your letter can read (and with some work even manipulate) the content. That’s HTTP.

Now you do the same, but write in code. Now the addresses are still known to every involved party but the content is secured from being read and thus from being manipulated, too. That’s HTTPS.

And now you pay someone to pick up your mail, send it from their own address and also get the answers there that are then delivered back to you. The content is exactly as secure as before. But now you also hide your address from the postal service (that information has the guy you pay extra now though…) and from the one you are communicating with. That’s a VPN.

So using a VPN doesn’t actually make your communication more secure. It just hides who you are communicating with from your ISP (or the public network you are using). Question here is: do you have reasons to not trust someone with that information and do you trust a VPN provider more for some reason? And it hides your address from the guy you are communicating with (that’s the actual benefit of a VPN for some, as this can circumvent network blocks or geo-blocking).

Long story short: Do you want to hide who you are communicating with from the network you are using to access the internet? Then get a VPN. The actual data you send (and receive) is sufficiently secured by HTTPS already.

Oh, believe me: There are so many messy BIOS and UEFI implementations out there that you can definitely deactivate it in the BIOS for some. Which just introduces even more mess where hibernation triggered on the OS level then fails.

They actually don’t. They try and it works for some time. And then the next Windows update intentionally fries their dual-boot. Then they go back to Windows.

Or they understood enough about the details and how to minimize the risk (basically running Linux with an linux boot manager that then chain-loads Windows boot files from another disk, so Windows is mostly oblivious about the other OS… and even then Windows likes to screw with the efi record) that they are mainly running linux. And later they tend to ditch Windows completely of just keep a virtual machine if they really need it for some proprietory stuff.

At least those scenarios above cover 95% of all people “dual-booting” I know…

In comparison, dual- or triple-booting Linux is indeed a bit less problematic. But the same thing applies: You mainly run one. And given that Linux distributions are all nearly the same, with just a few differences in pre-configuration and defaults, there’s not much point to it.

The good thing is: They might be big but they are mainly a risk for bees. But not much is actually as obnoxious (or dangerous for humans) as the aggressive assholes that are our domestic common wasps.

But public funding isn’t the problem. The problem is that private funding is also allowed. And so the people with the most money control what is told to the other 99%.

And no, disallowing private funds for journalism that is also getting public funds isn’t a solution either, because then they still have their 100% private “journalism”. And banning those in general would be met with a lot of crying about press freedom.