Haven't checked my low level sound drivers in a long time - I'm using pipewire and wireplumber to control it all. Is ALSA still there at the bottom/as a dependency? Arch btw.
emotional_soup_88
I also remember using DC++: https://dcplusplus.sourceforge.io/webhelp/index.html
Bittorrent is probably better for anonymity/privacy, though, right?
Emotions, soups and two upright eternity signs. You're right. F...
Depending on where the alleged offenses were committed, not decrypting that for which the authorities have a warrant to analyze can be a crime in itself. I'm all for encryption, but without plausible deniability - something that VeraCrypt offers with their hidden volumes feature - encryption might by itself not get you far. Again, depending on the jurisdiction in question. And depending on whether the authorities really want to invest the time and money into "catching" one pirate. And, finally, at least encryption gives you the choice not to decrypt on demand. I just wanted to give encryption some nuance.
HOW COULD I MISS THAT OPPORTUNITY
crying myself to sleep
It had to be 'toys' and not, say, 'loot'? 😳 Sorry, I hear what I wanna hear...
Most recent white lie: probably something I said not to hurt another person (cute baby/you did great/how could he/etc).
Most recent indecent lie (to save my own ass/to defame or to hurt somebody/etc): I have never tried drugs.
This about the IFS variable was eye opening! Thank you SO much! This is exactly what I was trying to understand, namely, how on earth the for-loop is smart enough to understand how to count when I haven't specified a numerical interval (as I do in for instance C when I practice that). This just solved it all. Thanks! Now I also understand why my code gave me excessive outputs when I changed ls into ls -l. The IFS variable made the for-loop count every single blank space!!! :D
Reading this part of the Bash manual for the third time today, I think I finally understood it better, thanks to this part in particular:
[...]execute commands once for each word in the resultant list [...]
In other words, whatever follows in is half expected to result in a list of words (items), each for which command is then executed. Beyond that, I guess I'd have to simply look at the logic behind for-expressions.
Thanks!
I was a teacher for some years and I absolutely understand your style of explanation. I don't find it condescending at all! Thank you so much for the in depth guidance! Some of it I already knew, some of it I didn't. Anyhow, a new perspective is always appreciated! :) God, Bash (GNU/Linux in general) is so much fun!
Penguins are birds too 🥹





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-THp8-iY0Y