Para_lyzed

I am also experiencing this issue on Fedora 40 with the Negativo drivers, and I believe this is a flatpak issue. Here is a GitHub issue detailing the problem. Allegedly it has been fixed, but I have updated to the latest commit and am still having the same issue, so I am unsure what to do (I’ve spent a number of hours trying to troubleshoot this). You might have luck just running a flatpak update, as that is supposed to solve this issue (YMMV though, it didn’t fix it for me).

No, here is the official RPMFusion documentation for it, which is linked to in the Nvidia driver documentation from RPMFusion.

Interesting to note, though another user pointed out that this does not work the same way in the United States (political organizations still have to provide a means to opt out).

Yes, I believe all of that is in line with what I have stated. Just to clarify, my interpretation of the previous comment was that political parties were exempt from the requirement to provide an opt out in Australia for political parties (by my interpretation, just the official parties and not unrelated political organizations), and they implied they believed it to be the case in many other countries. I have not recently reviewed the relevant laws, so I was not 100% certain if that implication would prove true in the United States (though was pretty confident that was not the case by my previous experiences with messages from officially endorsed organizations), but I went on to explain how these are not officially endorsed by political parties anyway, so if such an exemption did exist, it should not apply to this particular message.

Thank you for the clarification!

Political organizations and non-profits are exempt from this list.

In that case, you’re best off opting out and seeing if it works. If you get a text from the same group at a later date, then you can report them to the FTC. Please do not do this unless they do not honor your opt out request, as politically affiliated groups are legally allowed to market in this way so long as they provide a means to opt out of communication. Falsely reporting puts strain on the already incredibly underfunded system and prevents real scams from being caught and dealt with due to a lack of resources. I recommend you keep a list of groups you have opted out from that is easily searchable to track this. 4 years ago I got multiple of these texts per day. I have been opting out every time I receive one, and now I have not gotten one in over 2 years. Eventually you will run out of groups to opt out of, and will only be messaged by newly created groups, which will happen much more slowly than all of the groups constantly texting/calling.

Beyond that, there isn’t really much you can do. Your number is on a list, and people are buying that list. Although you could see if putting your number on the national do not call list would help (EDIT: though apparently political organizations are exempt from that on further reading). I have not done this personally, but I came across it while looking up how to report scam texts. Perhaps it could be beneficial to you (who knows?)

Mine reset when I switched phones a couple months ago, and I had to manually add them to my new phone. If I hadn’t noticed, then my blocked numbers list would be empty. Not saying that is a common issue, but it doesn’t hurt to opt out before blocking; just don’t click any links or say anything other than the opt out keyword.

While I would have to find the US law and examine it more closely to tell if that is true here, these groups are not actually representatives of political parties. They are groups of self-proclaimed political advocates that try to raise money to host events that raise awareness of their causes for local voters. But they would not qualify for an exemption due to association with a political party, as they are not officially connected to or endorsed by a party.

True, but if you get a new phone and your blocked numbers list is reset, or they send messages from a different number, then you could get them again in the future. I see this often because there are multiple people in that campaign that will all reach out to people with their own phone numbers. Opting out prevents that for legitimate donor campaigns (you are removed from the list for all of the solicitors associated with that campaign), but obviously not for scams. There is no harm in doing both, and I would recommend that (it’s what I do).

Your number is on a list of real numbers with real identities associated with them that was sold to them. Data brokers sell this information daily. They already know your number is real, but in order to comply with the law, they have to provide you with a legitimate option to opt out, so you will actually stop receiving correspondence from them if you ask them to stop (it is legally required). If not, they could be subject to a fine, but you’d obviously have to file a complaint with the relevant regulatory body for that.

If you do not attempt to opt out, they cannot be fined for spam if this is part of a legitimate donation campaign. If you don’t reply, they will continue sending messages to you in the future. It costs them almost nothing to do, so even if they didn’t know your number was real, they would do it anyway. Most of the people who donate from these messages don’t reply through text message anyway. And if this were an actual scam, then there is nothing they gain from receiving a text back so long as you do not open their link. But again, in order for legal action to be taken (since these political reach outs are legal and not spam so long as there is an option to opt out), you must first try to opt out.

EDIT: Feel free to block the number after opting out. If they are legitimate (though the name is really fishy), then opting out will remove your number from all of their solicitors’ lists, so you won’t get texts or calls from different numbers working for the same campaign. Again, replying doesn’t give them anything even if it is a scam, as your number was obtained from a real list sold to them by a data broker; they already know the number is in service. Just don’t click the link in the text, and don’t reply with anything other than stop.

Matrix leaks tons of metadata, and its encryption lacks perfect forward secrecy. Additionally, it requires an email to sign up, and there are accounts with unique identifiers.

Simplex does not have any accounts or identifiers, everything is stored entirely locally. Additionally, it is based on the double ratchet Signal protocol, with improvements made for post-quantum encryption. It does not require anything to sign up, as there are no accounts. Metadata is not leaked as it is with Matrix, as everything is encrypted or obscured. Messages are padded to 16KB, the sender/receiver is not attached to the message, and there are fake messages being sent to obscure the identity and frequency of contact of those you are talking to even under monitoring of your network. Additionally, for anonymity, SimpleX is allowing for repudiation so that you cannot prove that a specific person sent specific messages, allowing doubt if messages were to be use in a court case, for instance. It is the trend (especially from a security perspective) to implement nonrepudiation, but the SimpleX team decided to remove it to protect users (after years of it being present in SimpleX chat). This is a protection intended for journalists, but it extends to many other cases as well.

Matrix is a nice toy, but SimpleX chat is built for anonymity above all else, and it does that job far better than Matrix ever has or will.

Do you not consider Alpine Linux to fall into the general category of “Linux”, then? It lacks GNU user space utilities, though there is never a world where I would not consider it a “Linux” operating system. You seem to be overgeneralizing here and making assumptions about OP’s intentions that aren’t based in fact. I don’t see the point in drawing meaningless lines, here. What you’re referring to (as described by the GNU project) is GNU/Linux, not “Linux” by itself. The two are often but not always used interchangeably, and treating them as exactly the same leads to major outliers, like Alpine. I’ve heard plenty of people use the term “Linux” in practice to describe software running on embedded devices that don’t contain GNU utilities, so this isn’t exclusive to Alpine. In fact, the only real exception that I see consistently to operating systems that run the Linux kernel is Android, so it makes much more sense to formulate a description of the generic term “Linux” as simply having an exception for Android, though I’d argue that the only reasons that Android isn’t viewed as “Linux” is because it is a mobile operating system, it is developed with the sole intention of including non-free, proprietary software (AOSP by itself isn’t meant to be the full operating system on any device, but rather a framework), and the fact that the structure of the filesystem and the way apps are run differ completely from the ways of traditional “Linux”. It seems to be an exception purely by the fact that it operates in fundamentally different ways than other “Linux” operating systems.

Not sure what the title was before you changed it, but if I see a post in my feed that looks like this (without the “very bad take” part), I wouldn’t even want to open the post to see the description. I’m glad you clarified by editing the title, but without making your stance clear in the title from the very beginning, it would be bound to receive a barrage of downvotes.

This is a bit late, but I just wanted to follow up to let you know that Fedora 40 updated to kernel 6.9 last week.

Fedora has pretty good SELinux configured out of the box, and isn’t focused on opsec. It’s just sane defaults and proper limitations to access. It also switched to Walyand-by-default this release, completely removing X11 from the default packages, which mitigates many of the “app spying on other app” scenarios that a previous user in the thread was talking about. That’s not to say that Fedora is the pinnacle of Linux security or anything, but it comes with pretty good defaults for the average user. You’d have to get into kernel hardening and deep into SELinux to do better as an end user, which is not something that most users are inclined to spend time or energy on.

Seconding partclone here, it’s the easiest solution for imaging that only backs up the data on the partition that is used. Plus, it’s in RescueZilla, which is pretty intuitive and user friendly for those that prefer GUIs

Shouldn’t be too long left, I’d expect it to hit Fedora 40 sometime this month. I also shared instructions on how to temporarily upgrade the kernel to the one in Fedora 41’s repos (which is past 6.9) if you were interested in trying that, though the instructions are untested as of yet (the issue doesn’t affect me since I don’t play games). It’s easily revertible if you wanted to give it a try. I probably wouldn’t bother if you use secure boot, because I’ve had issues with signing things before with similar steps, though those are the official steps from the Fedora documentation, so it may be that they just work fine.

Is it related to the issue described in the post attached to this comment? The linked comment also links to an issue page with details about the issue the poster experienced. If so, then that issue should actually be fixed in kernel 6.9 (which still has not been added to the Fedora 40 repos), and not caused by it.

An extension of this issue is present in 6.8.9+ before 6.9, which is why I ask if this seems to be related (since the versions are pretty close in time and Fedora doesn’t even have 6.9 yet).

It really depends on the individual case. There are many CS professions where the title “engineer” or “scientist” is incredibly accurate. I believe that is a minority of course, and further depends on how broad your definition of “cs people” is. There are specialties within the incredibly broad field of computer science that require education in classical engineering, as well as specialties that focus on research and experimentation with the scientific method.

Hm, it could be a new issue then. I’m not seeing it on the Bazzite issues page, perhaps you should open a new issue on it here, and provide your hardware specs. At the very least, you could see if this issue is reproducible on other installs, and someone there could help to obtain more useful debug info to determine the actual problem. You could also report it on the Mozilla Bugzilla page, as chances are this is a Firefox issue and not a Bazzite issue, but I admit that the interface for bug reports is less intuitive for non-developers there. Bazzite devs would likely direct you to there first anyway though.

All I can really say myself is that I don’t experience this on Fedora Atomic KDE 40.20240607 with Mullvad Browser or the Firefox flatpak. I suspect it is either a hardware/config issue (on fresh install, I’d say a config issue is a distro issue if you haven’t changed anything), or that this is Bazzite specific and not present in upstream Fedora Atomic. Regardless, it’s a good idea to report this so that other users don’t experience the same bug