The OEM version is working fine, as the drivers are embedded there. My point was that without this recovery partition you tend to run into issues on newer devices, as the MS bundled drivers get updated only infrequently.
even on Windows 10/11, I'm still frequently hearing about issues at work where the necessary ssd drivers are only included in the default windows installer (not the recovery shipped with the device) like half a year later. at least with Dell this seems to be a common theme.
how about "silly"? "stupid"?
unlike on reddit, you can edit your post title here on lemmy.
reporting absolutely helps. it increases visibility for content that slipped through automated moderation and having more reports for content indicates urgency.
based on the sticker logic, it's clearly not
at that point you'll just discourage any new users if they have to gamble on whether or not their content is actually seen by anyone. account age really isn't a good indicator of anything other than soemone being dedicated enough to spam. considering this isn't the first wave of csam attacks, i can assure you that whoever is targeting lemmy with this is determined enough that account age won't deter them for long, they'll just have to slightly adjust their playbook.
that doesn't do anything, they'll just register accounts in advance and wait some days.
we've even had spam recently from accounts that had been dormant for months, although it was a different kind of spam.
account deletion does not federate in general, only banning (+ content removal) does
I ate fiber but now my internet is down. what do I do?
The 90 days disclosure you're referencing, which I believe is primarily popularized by Google's Project Zero process, is the time from when someone discovers and reports a vulnerability to the time it will be published by the reporter if there is no disclosure by the vendor by then.
The disclosure by the vendor to their users (people running Lemmy instances in this case) is a completely separate topic, and, depending on the context, tends to happen quite differently from vendor to vendor.
As an example, GitLab publishes security advisories the day the fixed version is released, e.g. https://about.gitlab.com/releases/2024/01/11/critical-security-release-gitlab-16-7-2-released/.
Some vendors will choose to release a new version, wait a few weeks or so, then publish a security advisory about issues addressed in the previous release. One company I've frequently seen this with is Atlassian. This is also what happened with Lemmy in this case.
As Lemmy is an open source project, anyone could go and review all commits for potential security impact and to determine whether something may be exploitable. This would similarly apply to any other open source project, regardless of whether the commit is pushed some time between releases or just before a release. If someone is determined enough and spends time on this they'll be able to find vulnerabilities in various projects before an advisory is published.
The "responsible" alternative for this would have been to publish an advisory at the time it was previously privately disclosed to admins of larger instances, which was right around the christmas holidays, when many people would already be preoccupied with other things in their life.
sure they do, you're one of them