This has been the case since SATA revision 3.3, released Feb 2016. So while I may have exaggerated with “ancient”, a brand new PSU certainly shouldn’t still be feeding 3.3v to that pin.

Likely changing the “active” flag or boot stuff, but as the other commenter says, if you aren’t 100% confident, disconnect the scsi

I have done this with dozens of drives and have never had to do any pin blocking. You only need to do that if you’re using an absolutely ancient sata power cable that doesn’t know about the spinup pin change

VP9 has pretty wide support, probably due to the Google (and YouTube) backing. I sincerely doubt devices will phase out any codecs, especially not VP9.

AMD video cards have supported hardware decoding of VP9 since vcn1.0 - well before they had support for decoding AV1

AV1 and VP9 are likely going to be your highest efficiency “free” codecs. AV1 is the way to go if you mean free as in free open source. It’s not very likely to be implemented in many TVs or set-top-boxes, but VLC/ffmpeg will be able to decode any of these. Webm uses vp8 or VP9 which are “free”(made by Google) but it’s just more specific settings for sharing online/viewing in browser.

H264/H265 has license fees for non-free software and hardware, but they will be your most widely supported option. H265 is approximately twice as efficient as h264 (meaning you can get the same quality of encode from half the file size).

Regardless of preset I think you can get handbrake to encode something reasonable from any of these codecs. Especially with DVD video you’ll be able to crank through videos with modern high efficiency codecs

It certainly is. ISO 27001 is a framework, not very prescriptive at all. Basically an auditor will ask “how do you ensure data isn’t leaving your facility in the form of discarded hardware?” If you say “here’s a link to our media destruction policy. It says all drives are wiped according to NIST 800-88 cryptographic erasure. If that is not possible or not applicable, the drive is destroyed. Here’s our log of decomissioned equipment” chances are very good they’ll say “OK great let’s move on to the next one” with only minor followup questions.

More unconstitutional garbage

Op said they tried without the firewall connected and had the same results

Digital millennium copyright act. It effectively moved the burden of proof for copyright infringement from the copyright owner to the accused, short-circuiting the existing IP laws, among other things.

It is where much of the drama around copyright online stems from. It’s used as a way to quickly stifle anything someone posts that’s something you don’t like.

It made circumventing DRM itself illegal, even if you’re not breaking copyright by doing so (even if it’s for your own research or backups).

Best era of the Internet was before the DMCA. At the time it passed I knew it would kill a lot of my favorite things about the Internet and I sadly wasn’t wrong

And who’s got boxers tight enough and pants loose enough that they’d have the boxers stay up when the pants come down? I’ve been pantsed and the undies definitely went with the pants

Jokes on you, most Republicans can’t read

You sure did. It’s a clause that describes one reason to support the idea that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It’s not a limiting statement on the right to bear arms and how it should be infringed.

The intent of the amendment is and always has been that of self protection - the government is not responsible for protecting your person, you are. The tools you use to protect yourself are called arms. The right to have, carry, and use those tools isn’t granted to us by the government, it’s an inalienable right inherent to being human.

There are already massive restrictions within the state of California on who can carry a firearm either concealed or open, where firearms can be carried, and how they can be carried. These new regulations are not intended to improve the public safety, they’re intended to prevent those who have already jumped through countless hoops registering, proving themselves, and gaining explicit authorization to carry weapons, from exercising their right to self defense and from being able to choose how they can protect themselves. It’s intended to make us more dependent on a police force that continues to prove itself ineffective and largely corrupt.

No children are being saved by this law.

Reading this makes me want to try gentoo again…

I also find that interesting, but what I don’t find interesting is the title or description of your post; that’s what he’s complaining about, not the content of the article.

A better question is what are you achieving? Voting against your own interests

What's the point of voting for the two choices you hate when there are other choices?

I don't vote for the people you're talking about

This doesn't remove all background checks, so "immediately and without precondition" is facetious.

I agree with not selling weapons to known maniacs, but I also believe that if the govt knows someone's dangerous enough that they shouldn't own a gun for self defense, they already should have been removed from the general population and arrested/imprisoned etc, as they are still very dangerous to the general population without said firearm.

What a lot of whataboutism. I'm against all of that, too, but I can also be against limits on my rights of self defense.