TootSweet @ TootSweet @lemmy.world Posts 35Comments 2,164Joined 2 yr. ago
Advertising? Even if only word-of-mouth.
It would have to be pretty secretive. But it's not like there aren't other services out there that do similar things illegally under cover of anonymity. (Silk Road, anyone?)
Text without the "rule":
Macaroni and Cheese
Yeah, I got that.
"Have a 4chan?" Isn't 4chan loginless?
This was introduced as a joke, right? It was introduced by a Democrat. This has to just be an elaborate, rhetorical statement.
I would have thought there would have been a continuous train of successors to Silk Road since the "first one" was shut down.
Just wait until the JS fanboys hear about the section 3, paragraph 7, subsection ii prohibition on JS in the build process.
I tried farting in the bread isle, but I have yet to find true love. Am I doing it wrong? Maybe I need to eat more garlic for extra fragrance?
Is this about DEI hires or workers whose jobs are to ensure their hiring practices promote diversity, equality, and inclucivity? I took it to mean that if Susie in HR has a job description that includes anything about diversity in hiring, federal workers are supposed to rat on Susie or face consequences. Not on the folks who maybe arguably were hired because their presence increase diversity, equality, and/or inclucivity.
Ah! Ok. I responded with "how so" before OP edited their post to even include the second line there. I didn't notice the post had been edited until after responding to your response. Maybe allowing editing posts is a bad idea. Lol.
I get and agree with most of what you're saying here about everything bad about the war on drugs, but is Ulbricht really part of the solution rather than part of the problem?
Yes, Silk Road was (and probably successors of Silk Road still are) a way to get drugs.
But it's clear you don't think organized crime is a good thing, and this guy seems a lot more organized crime than not-organized crime. Basically it seems like Ulbricht embodies exactly all the things wrong with the war on drugs rather than being some sort of champion in opposition to the war on drugs.
If Trump had pardoned a literal mafia boss who sold drugs and was tied to 6 attempted assassinations, would you approve of that?
If Trump had pardoned a former big pharma CEO who peddled opioids illegally and was tied to 6 attempted assassinations, would you approve of that?
I made the post you responded to before he edited his post to say "The war on drugs is a load of bullshit." I wasn't asking about that bit. And I agree with that bit.
I was asking "how so?" about his statement that "this is actually good news."
But I don't really see how this pardon is any move to weaken or end the war on drugs.
When I have more time, I might see about responding to OP's "sigh" post in this thread with more.
Ah! Cool! Always good to be expanding the fediverse.
I'm out of the loop. What's this "Reddit thread from earlier today"?
Also, yes, welcome to former Reddit users. I'm also a former Redditor, but I left during the API pricing fiasco.
I wasn't saying anything about who bears "fault". My aim with that post (and honestly all the posts I've made in this thread) was about understanding the details of the vulnerability well enough for folks to be able to ascertain a) whether they're affected and b) how to remediate.
About "fault", I'm not sure I really agree that's the best way to talk about these things in general unless they did them purposefully. (WEI, for instance, was malicious bullshit. But I don't have any particular reason to think in this specific situation Microsoft didn't handle responsible disclosure properly or anything.)
Clearly Microsoft made a boo boo in choosing to trust the vulnerable tools in the first place, but vulnerabilities are inevitable.
I'll definitely say I don't consider Microsoft "trustworthy" enough to protect my stuff. If only because Microsoft stuff is bloated and has a huge amount of attack surface. But also because their history make it clear they'll perpetrate really shitty things against their users on purpose. The former could only really be addressed by them slimming down their technology stack. The latter by abolishing the profit motive.
And also, in general UEFI is apparently a cluster fuck of poor, buggy implementations. So there's that.
In all, this is one doesn't strike me as terribly high on the "blameworthy" meter unless you just consider it a symptom of Microsoft being assholes, which is undeniably true.
I don't know where you got the idea that the key fob doesn't transmit a signal when at rest. If you're talking about keyless ignition with the button on the car (not remote start via key fob) the key fob transmits a response when it gets a request from the car.
The bad guys have a clever trick, though. They put one guy in your car and one guy next to you. The guy at the car hits the ignition button transmits the signal to the other guy, who transmits it to your fob. The second guy then transmits the response from your fob back to the guy in the car, who then sends it to the car. As far as your car knows, the fob is in the car. So it starts. A Faraday cage can protect against this.
Did you expect the screenshots you posted to make people want to side with you?
If what you're looking for is lies, Fox News may be more your speed.
I've heard nothing but good things about A People's History Of The United States and it's been on my short list of books to read for a while. Haven't gotten to it yet, but I think it's worth a read.
Cryptobro logic right there.