qprimed

just when you are sure this article is going to fluff out on you, it doesn't.

But how does AI tell when someone is most likely lying? They’re smiling like an American.

I was oddly surprised at how I connected with this article. a useful read in a defining epoch.

you (yes, you in particular) are the reason why STP was invented.

I would normally suggest that this is more "networking porn", but its just way too fetishistic for regular consumption. you animal!

'member when your dad/friends/strangers told you "don't put your dick in crazy"? (for those of us with)

there is way too much crazy in this scenario to even begin sorting it out. its literally a null in the universe. a divide by zero, if you will. shits so weird now we need an event horizon to hide this naked singularity.

absolutely gorgeous photos and a wonderful story to boot! thank you!

don't how old you are, but will is old school republican. hails from what what was known as the "intellectual" appendage of the gop's corpse. dude is wrong, but not dumb.

if we set aside the accelerated rightward sprint of the democrats since the 1980's, a public kamala endorsement from him really is kind of a pigs flying moment.

this move might signal to the remains of his caste that its ok to secretly pull that dem lever or just sit it out. effect will likely be minimal, but not inconsequential in a super tight race.

what is more intersting is that parts of the lobotomized right are still making gurgling noises.

this thread. this thread is... heartwarming! immagonnacry!

branding is important, yo!

You have a double standard.

well, don't we all? but I think my argument is somewhat well founded. I have a reply in-composition, but just got project smacked. will reply as soon as I am able. didnt want you to think I had abandoned a conversation.

That's security through obscurity. It's not that Linux has better security, only that its already tiny desktop market share around 2003 was even smaller because of different variations.

no, its absolutely not. its choosing software components based on known security vulns or limiting exposure to a suite of suspected or established attack vectors. its absolutely not security through obscurity. these are fundamental choices made every day by engineers and sysadmins everywhere as part of the normal design, implementation and maintenance process. there is nothing "obscure" about selecting for certain attributes and against others. this is how its done.

perhaps you disagree with this.

That's again blaming the Microsoft user for not understanding computers but not blaming the Linux user for running as root.

? its not the users job to understand OS security. to expect otherwise is unrealistic. also, virtually no "average" linux user, then or now, ran/runs as root. the "root X" issue related to related to requiring XWindows to run with and maintain root privs., not the user interacting with X running as root. it was much more common in the XP era to find XP users running as administrator than a "Linux user ~~for~~ running as root" because of deep, baked-in design choices made by microsoft for windows XP that were, at a fundamental level, incompatable with a secure system - microsofts poor response to their own tech debt broke everything "NT" about XP... which is exactly the point I am trying to make. I am not sure your statement has any actual relation to what I said.

So you blame Microsoft for allowing users to disable security features but don't blame Linux for allowing it also?

I am saying that I have far fewer privilege escalation issues/requirements on a typical linux distro - almost as if a reasonable security framework was in place early on and mature enough to matter to applications and users.

we can get into the various unix-ish SNAFUs like root X, but running systems with non-monolithic desktops/interfaces (I had deep core software and version choices) helped to blunt exposures in ways that were just not possible on XP.

we are talking about XP here, a chimeric release that only a DOS/Win combo beats for hackery. XP was basically the worst possible expression of the NT ethos and none of NTs underlaying security features were of practical value when faced with production demands of the OS and the inability of MS to manage a technology transition more responsibly.

now, if you ask me what I think of current windows... well, I still dont persnally use it, but for a multitude of reasons that are not "security absolutely blows".

apologies for the wall-o-text, apparently I have freshly unearthed XP trauma to unload. :-/

so, hows your day going? got some good family / self time lined up for the weekend?

these days old onion articles are prophecy and new onion articles cant even give me a raised eyebrow.

this is/does both.

as a followup to how useful your visualization is, I have started spreading comments across a wider selection of instance communities.

this is something I have considered before, but your visulazation made the possible utility and usefulness of doing so much more "real".