Each distribution is different but Arch has stated that they did have the exploit artifact in their version of xz but the artifact was not loaded into memory with sshd as their process does not link sshd with liblzma library.
More details below but highly recommend upgrade/downgrade anyways to remove the exploit code version.
https://archlinux.org/news/the-xz-package-has-been-backdoored/
While the full extent of the exploit is not fully known, it seems specifically targeted at the sshd binary on deb and rpm based systems. If you’ve got that service disabled it should not have been running actively on your system. You should still perform whatever is needed to downgrade, but I would say you’re in the clear.
It’s likely a Google Console verification file to show you own the domain (e.g. to make changes to search results). It has to be published to the site with a random url that only the owner and Google know, but it’s still a public file. I don’t think it’s an issue if it’s stored in source as Google will query the site and not the source for that file.
If OP is concerned they can also change the verification method: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/9008080?hl=en
Hover over the window in the task bar and right click on the preview. This should show the restore/minimize/maximize dialog. Click restore if it’s an option then do the same and click move. You should be able to then use the arrow keys and “attach” the window to your mouse and move it to the visible area.
Edit: the other way to get this menu depends on the application but if you select the window and hit ALT and then space it should show the restore/minimize/maximize options.
This is funny because most object storages now use keys that represents a path. For example, you can host a website on S3 with folders for js/css/etc and it “just works”.
A torrent is broken into pieces, and further into blocks. The torrent file contains hashes of all the pieces that make up the full torrent. The client validates each piece that is downloaded and will re-download from another peer if an invalid piece is encountered. The spec goes in to more depth if you’re interested. https://wiki.theory.org/BitTorrentSpecification
Perhaps they should ask Copilot how their templating system works.