t0liman

I would imagine that the lack of evidence, is simply because it can’t be granted.

Ever.

The lawsuits are “theatrical” in a sense, because it establishes a significant series of burden, requiring the Supreme Court to “indulge their arbitration”

I.E. bullying the court is the only way to prosecute people for election performance or conduct because the court(s) can’t.

AFAIK The courts cannot collect evidence of election performance. It’s not their jurisdiction or mandate.

People seem to believe that the state courts can accept testimony or evidence.

They cannot accept evidence or suggest prosecution, no court can.

Fraud can’t be proven even if the action meets the definition and standard for fraud, if a court cannot be found or suggested.

They can only reject the motion, even if there is sufficient proof to investigate, affidavit or observation. Not that there is no evidence, but evidence can’t be collected and can’t be used, validated or collected until the Supreme Court is given the authority, agency and mandate to investigate the election.

It is a no-mans-land due to the lack of a court to prosecute those involved.

And it can’t be any other way.

A fundamental loophole exists because of the US constitution and the US court system during an election. It’s not new. It’s been there for centuries, and it can’t be patched over unless the elections are organised via a federal mandate, under a provisional government body with executive and/or legislative power.

The next few months are literally going to be noting that “the emperor has no clothes”, due to the hidden reality of the lack of legal consequence of people influencing the outcome, acting in a fraudulent manner.

And the resolve will be “the emperor has clothing, you just refuse to accept it”

It is a very long process of establishing that the “safeguards” have no meaning if the safeguards have no legal effect, and any election participant can’t provide evidence or audit results. That’s the theatre of the current process.

Especially if people know they can defraud the government, and communicate with others that they have done so, and avoid prosecution.

Only the Supreme Court can act during the election, and it is unwilling, because it can only intercept or accept cases that require the unburdened access to the undefined legal system to operate and arbitrate.

People seem to believe that these cases “lost”. They would never have “won”.

That’s the goal of the theatrical “losses” and attempts here, to show that the election process is vulnerable, and no legal domain exists, or can exist, so the Supreme Court is the intervention.

And it is prohibited from preemptive action for the reason that the Theatrics are legally necessary too.

There are no “Election Police”. There are no election courts / mandated legal bodies /commissions or state investigations that arrest people for election misconduct during or after election.

The role is absurdly and often temporary because of the partisan problems of establishing a “Neutral” body with the power to dismantle the US electoral system by degrees or by action, have the power to change the foundation and membership of the US Federal Government.

The mandate could only exist in a Supreme Court, with the power to arbitrate or commission an investigation, granted the domain to prosecute and perform this single task.

It’s fine to believe in Justice, but an Electoral Court would be the Arbitration of every future State and Federal Government. And they would require a mandate to act in the belief/service to a higher authority, perhaps the Constitution.

Perhaps not. Who would be appointed. Who would be compelled to attend or supply evidence. Who would be responsible for the decisions made, etc.

It’s far too late to implement an organisation with this epic mandate, one that could recreate or reshuffle an operating government.

Thus, There can never be Election Fraud. Because it cannot be investigated during the Election process, nor can evidence be collected, or interpreted/discussed under a legal action unless it exists outside of the election itself.

Something like “Purge” rules, the situation is generally grotesque if you try to process how the counter to the argument, that “of course the law exists”.

It’s also about applying the law. And enforcing the laws that exist. Think about the ramifications of not being able to process any evidence, because a court cannot exist in this domain.

You may believe a court could act, order, suggest or proscribe action, but if it cannot act, and it cannot compel or prove, what could a court order or interpret.

Who would apply the law. Who would determine the penalty. Who would apply that penalty, and who would defend the parties involved.

More importantly, can a court ever exist. Who determines the scope and power of a court to determine and act. The mandate to intervene.

What if that court does not exist, nor can it be created.

There is a degree of lawless agency because of the necessary expediency of counting and validating results.

If a tree falls in the forest, and there’s no record, did it even exist? This aphorism applies to the entire process of the US Election.

Unless evidence is collected outside of the Election, it’s not wilful ignorance, it’s entirely legally oblivious to any action or consequence during the conduct of an Election.

And to say that there’s any ability to “catch” indicates a lack of familiarity with the brokenness of the election process in the United States.

The AP and media likely feel comfortable being arbiters because the laws governing the collection of results are Anarchic.

AFAIK, anybody involved in the election could very easily commit fraud during the election process, because the process is not able to detect, investigate, prosecute or determine criminal action took place.

There is no police, no agency to record or investigate criminal or audit performance. There is no office or commission that could arrest people or provide testimony, and convert that testimony to evidence of misconduct.

The ability of a court to investigate requires a legal mandate to operate in (sic).

AFAIK this has never existed in the US. Most of the prosecution and criminal investigation happens before, after an election, because there has never been a criminal investigation of misconduct of election representation, nor the ability of a court to intervene during the election.

It may be that someone deliberately fed ballots into a machine over and over, meeting the requirements of impropriety and the action of fraud, but nobody can recover or remove that action with the current legal frameworks that exist, possibly even if that person acknowledges their action.

Their conduct may meet the burden of fraud, but criminal prosecution can’t or won’t be recommended or forwarded to local authorities for prosecution.

It may be that you can cheat the election process, but be arrested for stealing a paperclip, given the legal framework for election(s).

Without a National management of election performance, prosecution would be improbable within the timespan of an election period of 4 years, let alone 4 weeks.

The FBI or DOJ may appoint some organising body in the future, but I have no idea what the burden of proof is for a state election or “538 separate audits” of performance during an election.

Nobody is keeping the receipts if they don’t have to. Especially not with the standard of criminal investigation and audit of conduct.

It may fall to the FBI or adjacent investigation officers across states to have a granted license or authority to.

The courts aren’t able to investigate or interpret/ introduce evidence, Especially across the burden of State Courts who aren’t responsible for vetting or establishing the requirements for evidence of criminal or unconstitutional proceeding.

versus hearsay or other court-approved material would require a police investigation, or branch of government to intervene and provide a form of license for the provision of evidentiary material at the standard of proof required to allege fraud ie Communication, Payment or Beneficience of the act (whatever the legal burden for Fraud requires) versus the legal burden for defining Widespread Fraud, wherein it has to be a certain volume of Fraud, a co-ordinated action, a hierarchy or actor who provides facilities and mediation, or who would act on behalf of others to obscure evidence of Fraud as a signal of agency and conspiracy.

The likelihood of proving conspiracy and fraud, even with evidence and recordings, communications and affidavits, would take years and decades to process, not days or weeks.

If the standard of evidence requires an investigation, or, It requires a level above affidavit or hearsay, this would also require a court or official to “hear” or ponder the statements made.

A breach-monitoring service could act as a data washing service, sic.

Especially if privatized.

Blockchain is Very overrated, but it could be useful in keeping data "safe" where the temptation would exist to index or obscure results. Especially where data collection and censoring / disclosure has value to certain markets, i.e. Timed/rated or delayed disclosure, sic.

IDK, it's not impossible, but it's not my wheelhouse either.

I don't see any reuse or value to old databases and hashes being public, so it's missing that purpose to exist or be used/shared. Like a lot of blockchain is. It's not enough to exist, it has to be shared and kept alive. I suppose.

Still, If you look at the way AV and user security is handled, there are potential vectors to prevent or anticipate, especially if the process of disclosure is censored or segregated.

Perhaps also if they proactively lean towards purges or spontaneous negative actions, in order to obscure their intent or actual content / behavior.

HIBP relies on disclosure, and if it were woven into a typical service structure, there would be a temptation to "alleviate" the workload for customers, offering to "feed the beast" with positive results and competitive, defensive tactics against 3rd parties offering a similar product.

Which could segment the disclosure process, so that you would have multiple options, much the way that AV and Malware is handled.

And now you have the same failures as AV and Malware being segmented domains.

The probability of a corporation being incentivized to airbrush a 3rd party listing in a semi-corporate "index" or offering "alternatives" to anxious, very large corporations to disclosure or remediation. Especially if they deal with financial or legal data, or specific disclosure requirements.

And have problems with timely disclosure, or any disclosure.

Imagine if a clearing house for disclosure existed as a Symantec or Kaspersky "Subscription", with tiers of access and disclosure prevention for corporate members, wrapped up in a daily routine app, such as a 2FA/Password manager.

So that a disclosure would be made silently by the subscription service, without disclosing details, or the level of breach, etc. The accounts or corporations breached, would just have their entire client accounts auto-reset and the updated password would be applied to your password manager within a batch process without the user(s), the press, the security agencies, or the hacker(s) being notified.

That, instead of revealing the time period, the hashes of usernames & passwords, or the name of the user, or their IDs, it would just be rotated on a regular basis, and invisibly managed.

Its a concept with some value, ie "paranoid" security features as a service, to prevent or anticipate disaster, sic. But handled via a handshake type batch process of cycling password management.

But this also has potential for occlusion and obfuscation, especially in examples where the breach would be a crime, or need to be disclosed to federal/state/police agencies, etc.

Thankfully, most security policy would prevent this kind of amorphous takeover, but for small businesses and large businesses, having access security taken away and handled by 3rd parties, for convenience, is inevitable.

Well, grid feed-in can lead to faster repayment and smaller bills, but it's only 20-25% of the electricity price, so generating enough to be in credit relies on paying off the usage you have when the solar isn't generating enough for storage, or to offset your grid usage.

i.e. If you use 10kwh from the grid, and export 40kwh, you should get credit on your energy bill, but it's never that ideal, and some of the providers cap the export to 5kw/h for residential solar.

Most Australian energy providers have flat rate, some are on smart metering with peak/Time of Use rates;

The benefit of a battery isn't as immediate if you're not on peak rates. For those states which do have Peak/ToU rates, there are calculators that can show the amounts saved over 10-20 years, but it's still around 12 years to pay off a battery and solar install with the current pricing, not enough to cover the warranty or the useful lifespan of a battery in the same period. i.e. In 6 years, we'll have a next generation Powerwall or a competing technology, or something even cheaper, etc to store energy.

The solar rebates mean that even a smaller solar system is cost-effective in a smaller payback period.

The amount of the rebate has started to reduce, but a 4kw solar install will have a rebate around $2400 AUD ($1800 USD) off the price of the install, which usually comes to around 25-30% off the total cost of $5000 AUD, around USD $4200.

Prior to the half-price chinese panels coming into the market, the break-even was around 8-10 years, even with rebates. Cheaper panels have reduced the payback window to 4 years in some cases, even if the actual performance is not even close to the system's size,

ie. their real-world performance might only be 3.4kwh on a 4kw system, and the real-world payback might be closer to 5 years, due to changes in energy pricing affecting the returns, but also handling the problems like difficult installations, replacing/handling faulty hardware, or having to service the system if it fails in Australian weather conditions.

You can also find aggregates for these prices on sites like https://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/residential-solar-pv-pri... which contrasts costs and pricing across states, and also accounting for variables like labour and electricity pricing, etc. Most solar systems with the rebate can be USD $3k to $5k for a smaller home install, and the system can be paid off within 4 years, 5 years if you want reliable parts.

Energy Pricing in Australia depends on state and providers, but is around USD 20c per kWh depending on state and supplier, with some areas having flat rate, others requiring net metering and peak/offpeak times

There's also a grid connection cost of USD ~70c/day, while Feed-in of solar PV generation is around USD 6c to 10c per kWh, which will probably drop to 5c/kWh in July. An earlier solar generation scheme had dual/gross metering and USD 45c/KWh feed-in rates, but this was discontinued in 2016.

Add to this, residential systems often have to get special approval from their energy company for things like 3-phase solar installs, require limiting exports to 5kwh, restricting to 90% output for Grid stability, sic. etc.

There are no rebate programs for the batteries, and there's a cost hike for importing the Tesla Powerwall 2, for no particular reason.

Compared to the AUD $9,000 to $11,000 AUD cost for the PW2 install, and despite it being better value, there are smaller, but similar LG Chem RESU batteries, which are more affordable and easier to obtain.

home appliances should be aware

You mean IoT installed into wallplugs and whitegoods appliances, pool pumps, heaters, washers, heat pumps/air conditioners, hot water systems, etc.

Yeah. If there was only an IoT standard that worked to allow for usage to be monitored and devices to be switched on/off in a standard way ... sure.

There are "appliances" like HomeAssistant.io and OpenHAB and Domoticz out there to micro-manage these peripheral home devices and monitor consumption/excess/PV generation, and rulesets that can trigger responses and excess/egress of energy,

but it's too complex for the Inverter/Solar managers to take care of usually.

this is relatively useful,

but FreeNAS is about '20 minutes'* away from trying to implement a GUI package/plugin manager with IOCAGE for this very task so that they can set-and-forget the process and have it scripted into a launch command that is self-healing in case of failures.

'20 minutes' being 'maybe this year' in terms of delivery.

as for the guide, it's perhaps better to integrate the FreeNAS resource page from their forums, since this is becoming the defacto standard in the interim, https://forums.freenas.org/index.php?resources/fn11-1-jails-...

While it might not be the most practical guide for non-media use, it will get you past the basics of implementation and problem-solving,

especially the concept of putting iocage settings inside of a zpool dataset where it can be snapshot for backups, the issue of iocage not handling spaces inside datasets, without being escaped, and the networking glitch introduced in FN11.1 that can prevent IPv6/IPv4 addressing working as intended (that should be fixed by now ?)

to an extent, this is top-down, people will get their feet wet and learn, or not need to learn iocage.

or how to script pkg updates across the iocage 'fleet' etc.

This is pretty disingenuous for the definition of charity. The Clinton Foundation perhaps redefines what political bribery means in the 21st century, in an attempt to skirt the laws set up to prevent power, via money, government leaders or corporations influencing policy or private citizens.

The Clinton Foundation is the new SuperPAC.

At what point is a $1 million birthday gift seen as a gift from a friend? Or a "charitable donation" ?

Sure, there's no evidence of pay for play in explicit terms. Doing so would be tantamount for a legal definition of bribery. However, consider the natural progression of the PAC if it were to use the same loophole of charity instead. Would a charity request for money be considered access, at the same level as PAC influence?

At some point, the foundation should be considered a profitable business rather than a charity, given the immense staffing and expenditures of operation in a billion dollar+ charity organization.

It's not trivial to ignore the oddities that abound when it does not operate like any other charity organization. Plane tickets for Hillary and Chelsea, car expenses, six figure living expenses, etc.

The grey area of having ~70 year billionaires running for president is when you see just how they live and work, and how they got there... It's usually disgusting or disappointing. It almost always has to be.

If you disagree, examine what it is you believe is good about the process of allowing, then choosing between the richest of egomaniacs, to lead a nation with a sense of morality or ethical standards. The democratic process is acutely broken by any standard if you believe that PACs and now, "charity organizations" is a net benefit.

Procedural generation of mesh is difficult, but not costly (in terms of CPU, drawcalls or memory, textures or total polygon/tris in the combined mesh).

Many, many other games use modular assets, especially if poly and tri counts are important to keep down for mobile and low power consoles / handhelds.

With a few component models that can be separated and added to a base model, procedural mesh generation can work. But, it is extremely messy when starting out, just due to complexity and the strategy of a significant redesign of assets to be modular, not singular.

Once designers and artists are on-board, and that's half of the battle initially, in getting artists to make modular design for assets instead of single design of flagship or lead assets, then you need to create code to make the game actually work with Frankenstein ships or Frankenstein characters, buildings, etc.

it leads to intriguing art and possibilities.

And working out all of the intricacies of positions, storage, blending, replacement/deformation of modular assets, how to diagnose, test and display problems, modifying or identifying pre generated or fixed module assets in the gui, storing the atomic position and/or physics settings, looking for deformed mesh, hollow mesh/gaps, raytrace problems, wrap uv and deformation, problems with textures, etc. Batch calls, pooling, spawn locations, collision mesh, sic.

And that's just things I could think of from regular assets. Modular mesh, as well as modular textures are usually a no go area, because of the problems with the engine and performance guesswork when problems come up at the last minute. Or the first minutes. Etc.

Most indie games don't have the time to waste on procedural generation unless it's been troubleshooted or tested by designers and coders, or sold as an asset by others.

Buildings are often generated like this in game,

No Man's Sky is perhaps the more popular ur example of how to make procedural generated assets using math functions and geometric texture generation (it's been a long time since I looked at the tech they were supposed to be using under the hood, but i misremember something like fractal/geometric generation of textures to minimize the workload)

but it is still a tech demo of a well understood, but infrequently used tool.

That is, until they release the game.

The 1Gb per Tb rule of thumb is to handle the larger requirements of ARC caching, not the FS itself.

It's a performance guide, not a requirement.

The Gb/TB rule of thumb exists so that on-disk files can be moved around or stored in RAM before a write operation, and that open or recent files can be precached in RAM while being streamed, more than it is relative to the pools total capacity.

For things like compression, hashing, encryption, block defragmenting and other operations, ZFS uses a lot of caching and indexing to avoid bottlenecks.

If Apple decides to implement APFS on RAID at a software level ie to combat bitrot or to sell consumer /business NAS / SAN ie upscaled Time Machine services for VMs, there's going to be questionable setups and comparisons to FreeNAS, synology, unRAID and other software storage options with a mixture of technology and hardware, where apple won't be flexible or adaptive.

To argue for ZFS, requires understanding more about ZFS usage and performance scenarios.

It is very possible to run ZFS RAID Z1 on 2gb or less for even a 32tb pool, ie anyone is able to run 5x seagate 8tb SMR archive drives in RAID Z1, on 2gb RAM.

It is usable. FreeNAS regularly hosts builds on less than optimal hardware setups,

It's also usable with 4gb, 8gb, 16gb, or 32gb RAM, with varying % performance benefits as features are enabled and cache is expanded to handle storage of ARC or LRU (recently used) files/pages/blocks.

Usually, ZFS metric is measured in throughput when empty, to 90% full, and performance changes drastically under these conditions when cache is limited.

On a system like this with SMR "archive" drives the problem often is having a reliable cache of write data, and ideally, less fragments to store asynchronously, ie writing large files or modifying a large block is disk IO limited. If being used to store archives, up to and including for media files as a consumer device would, an optimal RAM size would be hard to guess, given that people might store bluray or UHD ISO files of ~40gb versus DVD's of 4-9gb, and streaming read/write of linear files would not use significant random iops.

With DB or VM storage, and consistent file blocks being written, the use case and performance requirements are just going to be different again, and this is where the 1gb per Tb rule is both useful and unhelpful for diagnosis of requirements.

ZFS has a lot of bottlenecks, usually CPU, RAM and IOPS, but people focus on RAM, since it is so much harder to expand or scale. And, it is not linear scale performance.

Regardless, it's just impossible to guess optimal use in a practical way since there's almost no caching at all under 2gb, the ARC is very limited and kernel panics are possible when memory is not tuned or limited to avoid expansion, which then usually relies on CPU performance rather than disk performance.

At the high end of usage, performance can be managed by different methods such as L2ARC, ZIL, more RAM, more CPU, different pools, etc. Each with caveats and usually, non linear benefits.

Many NAS units that come with 2gb of RAM are capable of running ZFS, the problem is performance.

It's even possible to run ZFS on less than 1gb RAM, but it's not going to be reliable or predictable unless you restrict the conditions of usage, ie limiting max filesizes, restrictions on vdevs or iops, etc. It would require heavy tuning for optimal task usage.

Especially if you start to hit the maximum storage limits of the pool, performance can be brutal without caching features, lower than 100kb/s when the ARC is busy or unoptimised. Usually whatever the CPU can deliver from the drive IO without IO or file cache will be veeery slow on NAS level hardware, because traditional NAS isn't CPU bound.

Essentially, at the point where you can't start or run performance features, there's no benefit from ZFS or CoW on smaller embed devices unless it is needed.

From memory, and experience, you can use half a gb per Tb of storage on Z1 storage with some caveats and have a usable performance, as long as you keep filesize and IO in mind.

With 4tb or larger drives, Z2 is recommended due to the outcome of a drive failure on the pool integrity, and just the rebuild /resilver times and error probability could allow data to be changed or corrupted during the resilver process.

This is just to combat entropy when reading Tb of data and creating new checksums due to the probabilities involved with magnetic storage. Current and future drive density almost guarantees that errors will occur with entropy and decay of magnetic storage.

With deduplication, it needs to store files with multiple hashes, caches per device, and pool, which conflates sizes (sic). About 5gb per Tb is a good start. in most cases, you would never require dedup as it has an extreme cost and usage case.