In addition to the other comments... These functions transverse the target subdirectories and try to copy/move files into themselves, which just won't work but is a waste of time and you're gonna see these errors. Just skip them like so find . -path ~/png -prune -o -iname "*.png" -exec ...
observantTrapezium
It's only downhill from there for Discovery.
The exact opposite is true for Lower Decks, I hated it in the beginning, but it ended up being my favourite show in 20 years.
The UK offers an early case study of how well-intentioned online-safety laws can go wrong.
What a huge presumption that these laws are well-intentioned.
Turns out the light at the end of the tunnel is the huge white margins on this meme
Clicked this post to say just that
Was Nunavut known by that name at the time? I thought this name for the part that was split from the Northwest Territories was given in modern times and just means "our land", but I may be wrong.
I don’t really need the encryption
In this case I'd say, LUKS is an overkill and just complicates your life. Try to think of a worst case scenario and what you are trying to protect against. Full disk encryption protects you against someone physically and clandestinely tampering with your server to compromise you by altering your OS, I'd say most selfhosters aren't at risk of this (I do use LUKS on my laptop, because if I'm not available to decrypt the drive then there's no reason for it to get decrypted). My approach to the server is to have encrypted directories as needed. For example the SFTP directory, the logic being that some of what's there may be sensitive, so encryption at rest prevents leakage after the drive is eventually disposed of. But my Git repos (including private ones) and calendar aren't encrypted at rest. Other services (e.g. Matrix, Borg, Vaultwarden) provide E2E so don't really need further encryption.
But with SSS and m=3, n can only be 1, 2 or 3. If n=2 there is a possibility for a conspiracy of 2 and a redundancy of 1, if n=3 then all three have to agree, but there is no redundancy, which was the case here.
Online bookings, such as through Expedia, are immediately canceled, even if they concern hotels in France.
I kinda wonder about that, hotel bookings usually require name and contact information only. So does Expedia and/or participating hotels blacklist all individuals with the name "Nicolas Guillou", or is it based on email address / phone number (that could easily be changed)?
3 is just a small number in this context, you can prevent a conspiracy (of 2), or have a redundancy (of 1), but not at the same time. They choose wrong... It's always a risk when something hinges on a single human individual.
As the article says, there are different flags flown there all the time, including the Israeli flag, the arguments against flying the Palestinian flag specifically don't make any sense. I'm unfortunately out of town now, I would have loved to be there.
It may, but it is not.