sylver_dragon

What do having sexl in a canoe and American beer have in common? It’s fucking close to water

Hey now. Those Clydesdales are doing their absolute best to piss out Bud.

The diver probably has some food on him, which the stingray is trying to get.
I visited Stingray City in Grand Cayman a lot of years back. Part of the tour package was that they gave you small squid to feed to the stingrays, and they would climb up you, out of the water for that snack. Also, there were a lot of stingrays in the area. We were instructed to shuffle our feet as we walked, to avoid stepping on one. The swimmer in the picture only needed to hang out for a bit before one or more stingrays would have come over, looking for any handouts.

That said, the experience of Stingray City was absolutely worth it. Between that, and snorkeling at the barrier reef, I have a lot of fond memories of my time at Grand Cayman.

Personally, I don’t find Evangelical support of Trump all that surprising.
When you get down to brass tacks, this is an election between two candidates. Almost no one is going to look at those two candidates and find a perfect fit. It’s quite possible that people won’t even find a good fit. But, they have three choices, either one of the candidates or not voting at all. The latter of those choices is pointless, if one has policy preferences that they want to achieve. That only leaves picking the closest fit among the two candidates.

In may corners of Lemmy, and in this community specifically, there has been a very strong push towards the sort of “vote Blue, no matter who” message, which has been around for several cycles. And this message is not wrong. Harris’s position on the war in Gaza has a lot of detractors. But, the choice is not between Harris and someone with a better position. The race is between Harris and Trump, whose position on Gaza is likely worse for those detractors. If those detractors don’t want things to get worse, they pretty much have to accept the situation as is, vote Harris and push for changes. And I suspect a lot of folks will support Harris, some enthusiastically, in spite of that policy difference. Because they will find other policy positions that they strongly support are also supported or championed by Harris. Better a flawed candidate that one which is diametrically opposed to the policy positions which one holds most dear.

The thing which seems to be forgotten by folks who wonder “how can Evangelicals support Trump?”, is that this same problem cuts both ways. The people who hold GOP aligned policy preferences hold those beliefs just as strongly as Liberal/Progressive folks hold their own. That they would fall into a “vote Red, no matter who” mindset should not be surprising at all. And for Evangelicals, I’d argue that this mindset may be even stronger. These are folks who believe that, not only does this life hinge on their actions, they also truly believe that the here-after does as well. As much fun as we might make of people for believing in an invisible sky-wizard, they really, really believe all that stuff. And their entire self-identity will be built on the version of that belief system. And let me stress that it’s specifically “their version of that belief system”. The various versions of the Christian Bible have a lot of ambiguous and contradictory stuff in them. It’s easy enough to dig out justifications for nearly any positions one wants to take. And Trump’s messaging has been pretty well aligned with the mainstream Evangelical version of policy positions on all the major topics. Harris’s positions, on the other hand, are in direct oppositions to those positions.

Why does that matter so much? One of the deeply important policy positions to Evangelicals, for several decades now, has been overturning Roe v. Wade. And for all the shit one might say about Trump, he actually got that done. Nixon, Regan, Bush, and Bush all failed in that one, paramount goal. Trump, did it. Stop and imagine for a moment, a politician whose personal life you find distasteful, yet they managed to accomplish the one single policy goal you hold above all others, would you go vote against them? Especially when their opposition is loudly campaigning to undo that major policy win for you? Oh, and that opposition is also campaigning against just about every other social policy position you hold. Anyone saying “yes” to that question is bullshitting themselves.

Now, is Trump going to get anything else done for the Evangelicals? Who knows. But, Harris certainly isn’t and she’s actively hostile to their worldview. And Trump already got “goal number one” done. It seems like a reasonable bet that someone who already won the top line fight might win a few of the other ones as well. And all that “fascism, threat to democracy stuff”? Ya, that’s just liberals whining because they are losing. It’s Godwin’s Law in action. The lawsuits and criminal convictions, that’s just liberals weaponizing the DoJ to stop Trump, since they can’t stop him legitimately. And Trump’s past as a horrible person? A personal turnaround story of a “lost soul coming to Jesus” is damned near a foundational myth of Evangelicalism.

No, Evangelicals supporting Trump is neither surprising, nor unexpected. And you can bet they will latch right onto the next GOP candidate to come along. And it’s not all that hard to understand. If you have ever bought into any version of “vote Blue, no matter who”, then you are intimately familiar with the same logic. From their perspective, the US is in the grips of an existential crisis which is being perpetrated by Democrats. The very foundations of their self are “under attack” as society moves further and further away from their central truths. And, from my own perspective, I don’t see that there is really any way to convince those folks otherwise. Trump isn’t the Devil in the desert tempting Jesus. To them, he’s the flawed man who is going to save their version of the US the only way he can. He’s a vigilante, bending or breaking the rules, because the rules are stacked against “the righteous”. That’s the mindset you are up against.

War rarely decides who’s right, just who’s left.

there wouldn’t be any reason to tweak and replace it all constantly.

There really wasn’t.

There is the legal concept of Mens Rea which has to do with the mental state of the person committing the act. And I think that applies in this case. Archeology has generally been about learning and providing knowledge of previous cultures. While the methods, mindset and actions of 18th and early 19th century treasure hunters left a lot to be desired, some of them did make some reasonable attempt at documenting their finds and preserving the context to provide that knowledge. Modern archeologists go to painstaking lengths to properly document finds and preserve as much knowledge as possible from finds. Grave robbers do none of this. Their motivations generally revolve around personal gain and they will destroy any context and knowledge in their attempt to make money.

Consider your own reading on the Valley of the Kings. Where did all of the information we have on the Pharaohs in those tombs come from? It’s from the work of the archeologists documenting everything found in those tombs. While there is certainly an argument for leaving things in the same state they were found in, that also means that the artifacts will continue to deteriorate and any further knowledge which might be gleaned from them will be lost. Sending artifacts to a museum isn’t all about putting them in cases for people to gawk at. It also means that actions are taken to preserve those artifacts and maintain them for observation and study in the future. Sometimes this does cause damage. Again, 18th and early 19th century preservation was often just as, if not more damaging than leaving those artifacts in-sutu. But again, the intention was to preserve, not enrich.

So, that’s how I would draw the line, based on the reason and methods used for the removal of grave goods. Is it done with the intention for the furtherance of knoweldge of previous cultures? Or, is it just done to enrich someone? And is the work being done using the current understanding and methods to best capture and preserve that knowledge for future generations?

While I would never support it, the main way to improve online discussion is by removing anonymity. Allow me to go back a couple decades and point to John Gabriel’s Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. People with a reasonable expectation of anonymity turn into complete assholes. The common solution to this is by linking accounts to a real identity in some way, such that online actions have negative consequences to the person taking them. Google famously tried this by forcing people to use their real name on accounts. And it was a privacy nightmare. Ultimately though, it’s the only functional solution. If anti-social actions do not have negative social consequences, then there is no disincentive for people to not take those actions and people can just keep spinning up new accounts and taking those same anti-social actions. This can also be automated, resulting in the bot farms which troll and brigade online forums. On the privacy nightmare side of the coin, it means it’s much easier to target people for legitimate, though unpopular, opinions. There are some “in the middle” options, which can make the cost to creating accounts somewhat higher and slower; but, which don’t expose peoples’ real identities in quite the same way. But, every system has it’s pros and cons. And the linking of identities to accounts

Voting systems and the like will always be a kludge, which is easy to work around. Any attempt to predicate the voting on trusting users to “do the right thing” is doomed to fail. People suck, they will do what they want and ignore the rules when they feel they are justified in doing so. Or, some people will do it just to be dicks. At the same time, it also promotes herding and bubbles. If everyone in a community chooses to downvote puppies and upvote cats, eventually the puppy people will be drown out and forced to go off and found their own community which does the opposite. And those communities, both now stuck in a bias reinforcing echo chamber, will continue to drift further apart and possibly radicalize against each other. This isn’t even limited to online discussions. People often choose their meat-space friends based on similar beliefs, which leads to people living in bubbles which may not be representative to a wider world.

Despite the limitations of the kludge, I do think voting systems are the best we’re going to get. I’d agree with @grue that the Slashdot system had a lot of merit. Allowing the community to both vote on articles/comments and then later have those votes voted on by a random selection of users, seems like a reasonable way to try to enforce some of the “good faith” voting you’re looking for. Though, even that will likely get gamed and lead to herding. It’s also a lot more cumbersome and relies on the user community taking on a greater role in maintaining the community. But, as I have implied, I don’t think there is a “good” solution, only a lot of “less bad” ones.

Like many of the differences, I suspect that one came out of the attempts as English Spelling Reform, which took greater hold in the US. Ultimately, the process hasn’t succeeded, but it has excised some of inconsistencies from the English. Though, it has also led to some confusion, as in the tire/tyre case.

I think this whole question and analysis begs the question that the number of bills passed is even a good metric. The point of Congress isn’t simply to churn out legislation for the sake of churning out legislation. And this metric sets aside other stuff Congress does completely, like confirming appointments, or overseeing the actions of Federal Departments. House Oversight Committee meetings aren’t flashy, nor do they often result in legislation. But, they are vital to keeping an eye on what the rest of the government is doing.

I won’t disagree that this Congress has been a shitshow. But, I just don’t buy that the “number of bills passed” is a particularly useful measure of Congress.

Ya, absolutely. My point was that, we shouldn’t assume that vendors are doing things right all the time. So, it’s important to have those layered defense, because vendors do stupid stuff like this.

This is a good example of why a zero trust network architecture is important. This attack would require the attacker to be able to SSH to the management interface of the device. Done right, that interface will be on a VLAN which has very limited access (e.g. specific IPs or a jumphost). While that isn’t an impossible hurdle for an attacker to overcome, it’s significantly harder than just popping any box on the network. People make mistakes all the time, and someone on your network is going to fall for a phishing attack or malicious redirect or any number of things. Having that extra layer, before they pop the firewall, gives defenders that much more time to notice, find and evict the attacker.

Also, Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot Cisco?

You have to get out away from cities. We get them in our yard every summer and our kids run about catching them.

Seen this one in my work environment. Confusing as heck the first time. It looks like explorer.exe in the context of the local user starts PowerShell.exe with a command line involving an Invoke-WebRequest piping the download into an Invoke-Expression (usually the shorter iex alias). No .lnk or .js file involved. Just explorer, PowerShell, infected.

Chilean Sea Bass Crackers

Hmm, sounds fishy.

Ya, in fairness to MS, Windows XP was a good release (post SP1, like most “good” MS releases). But, the fact is that MS is going to push the latest version, regardless of how ready it is for use. MS was hot for folks to switch to Windows ME. And holy fuck was that a terrible OS. MS also did everything short of bribery to get folks to switch to Vista (anyone remember Windows Mojave?). The “upgrade, or else” mantra has always been their way. Not that I blame them too much, it does need to happen. It just sucks when the reason for the new OS is more intrusive ads and user tracking.

Many years ago, I attended a Windows XP launch event. The Microsoft presenter had the perfect line to describe how MS views this:
“Why should you upgrade to Windows XP? Because we’re going to stop supporting Windows 98!”

This was said completely unironically and with the expectation that people would just do what MS wanted them to do. That attitude hasn’t changed in the years since. Win 10 is going to be left behind. You will either upgrade or be vulnerable. Also, MS doesn’t care about the home users, they care about the businesses and the money to be had. And businesses will upgrade. They will invariably wait to the last minute and then scramble to get it done. But, whether because they actually give a shit about security or they have to comply with security frameworks (SOX, HIPAA, etc.), they will upgrade. Sure, they will insist on GPOs to disable 90% of the Ads and tracking shit, but they will upgrade.

WeChat’s software has security issues? Color me shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Well, not that shocked.

Also:

WeChat’s custom encryption protocol

Don’t do that

I’ll throw Grand Cayman on the list. Specifically, I’d recommend visiting Stingray City. Just a really neat experience to feed/pet stingrays while wading around on a sandbar.

You claim to dislike it, yet you gave it greater reach by posting it on Lemmy. Good job! Or maybe your actual job, assuming you are being paid to shill for whatever rag this came from.

OnlyFans really wants to be more than OnlySex. But, the only reason this type of article is written is the fact that OnlyFans is a site for sexual content creators. And there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s better that sexual performers can be in more direct control of their careers, versus the often exploitive nature of porn from the past.