I’ve replaced a number of dishwashers and in every case like this the drain hose, under the dishwasher, had a low spot where water then mold collected.
It’s usually pretty easy to check. Most dishwashers are secured with a couple of screws to the counter top or sides. Once those are removed it should be easy to slide it out. Probably best to look up a YT video on it. But if that’s the problem the drain hose is a dime a dozen, don’t try and clean it. You’ll know if it’s the source of the smell pretty quickly.
This is so close to being right. You want your drain hose to have a high loop before it connects with the drain pipe. This site has more info and clear pictures.
This is awesome! So I get replace the hose, but then do you prop up the new one so there’s no low point for water to collect? Or will it just be an ongoing issue and need periodic replacement?
I can really depend on how the hose can be situated. Oftentimes the hose runs into a cabinet next to it and into the sink drain. Frequently just adjusting that under the sink is enough.
Also the hoses are intentionally too long so you can attach the hose before putting the washer under the cabinet. Making sure to take up the slack is the important part
But sometimes yeah you can’t and just have to replace the hose every once and a while. If you use the washer frequently enough, like at least once a week it should be fine for years
I was circumcised, I don’t have a problem with that fact. I understand why people do have a problem with circumcision and I don’t have an issue with it being banned.
Don’t try to induce mental trauma in me for my past that I’m not bothered by.
Babies and children don’t have sex. If you want to take this extreme HIV reduction procedure as an adult you’re free to do so. Or you can use a condom.
I have been physically punished when I did something bad as a kid. I’m not traumatized by that either but I still think it’s good that it’s illegal nowdays.
I agree. And if people went around claiming you must be traumatized over it and lying to yourself you’d say they’re full of shit. If someone was trying to convince you to be traumatized about it you’d tell them to fuck off.
I don’t think they’re saying people are traumatized. That word has a meaning. They’re saying people have issue reconciling the fact that their parents would do something like that to them and also that their parents are generally good people. Many people would rather not even consider that it wasn’t the right call, because it makes it easier to hold those two beliefs at the same time. However, people make mistakes. Those aren’t contradictory ideas if you can understand that people can be mislead.
Good for you not being bothered by it. But I think it’s rather easy to imagine that it can be a traumatizing experience and lead to psychological or physiological injuries. So it’s a medical procedure that should only be prescribed by doctors or if you are an adult.
Sure, I’m not arguing against that. I’m arguing against this mentality that everyone who has been circumcised should be carrying trauma over it, or must be carrying trauma but are lying to themselves. Don’t say you’re fighting on my behalf for something that doesn’t bother me in the slightest.
Fair point, not sure somebody is doing it and if so why, but that would be indeed contra productive. If someone does not feel traumatized why would anyone would want to convince them otherwise?
For some reason, they refuse to admit they were mutilated without their consent.
I’m not sure that is exactly how they meant it, but I can see you interpret it that way. An unnecessary, irreversible medical operation was performed on you without your consent, but since you are not bothered by it - good for you.
What? They’re not bothered by it how the fuck is that refusing to admit anything? Does that mean if two people get jumped scared in a dark room and one for the rest of their life needs a light on in their room and the other doesn’t that they are secretly traumatized? No it doesn’t.
Also circumcision happens at birth most of the time so many people (myself included) don’t remember it. It should absolutely be illegal but as the other person said don’t tell someone what traumas they faced and how they should be effected.
Also circumcision happens at birth most of the time so many people (myself included) don’t remember it. It should absolutely be illegal but as the other person said don’t tell someone what traumas they faced and how they should be effected.
Just because you don’t remember it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t effect you. Aside from the obvious physical effects, there are studies that suggest that neonatal stressors and pain (such as say amputating part of the baby’s genitals) can have long reaching psychological effects. For example:
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the problem with the anti-circumcision movement.
There are good arguments to be had for banning circumcision. Refusing to recognize my autonomy, and insisting you know the “secret trauma of strangers” better than they do is not one of them. It makes you sound like an asshole who doesn’t know what they are talking about and will cause people to think the whole movement is the same way.
For those arguing to ban circumcision: you need to purge assholes like this from your numbers. They are only doing harm and not helping your cause.
Your autonomy argument doesn’t work when you refuse to recognize my statements that I am not bothered by the fact that it happened to me. It makes you a blatant hypocrite when you say you are concerned about the autonomy of children but ignore my autonomy as an adult.
Children do in fact need someone to speak for them. When you insist on speaking for me when I am fully capable of speaking for myself and telling you not to, then I’m going to tell you to fuck off and won’t be very receptive to anything else you have to say.
I have a neutral stance on circumcision. Do what you please. I just wish people like you could try to prove a point without using “mutilation” over and over to make it sound worse than it actually is. It puts an agenda on your point and biases it. There’s nothing mutilated about it. It’s just altered.
If you consider this to be mutilation then that would also mean you think any gender affirming surgery is also mutilation. And one could much easier argue that converting a penis to a vagina is far more mutilating than just removing some extra skin from a penis.
So if you’re trying to convince people to stop circumcision, stop using overly dramatic words and just explain why it’s not necessary. Otherwise I’ll just roll my eyes at people like you.
Its more, theres no harm in wearing your shoes inside. It’s like saying we should all wear gloves inside to not touch germs, just kinda silly y’know. Humans evolved barefoot, a bit of dirt on the floor isnt the be all and end all of existence.
The two dogs I had were easily taught to wait on the floor mat right by the door. Once someone wiped their paws with a towel they would proceed forward. 🤷🏼
If it’s wet or snowy out, I throw down a town on my way out, so my dog has no choice but to step on a towel on the way in. Combine that with using a leash and she has no choice but to stop until I’m satisfied with her feet
My sister-in-law does similar with a bucket of clean water, so she even gets dry dirt off, but that’s excessive.
Humans have lived in filth their entire existence and whatever being tracked in, if it’s not visible, it’s cleaner than most of human history and it’s clean enough to not cause harm
I take precautions to minimize the amount of shit I’m exposed to. Tooth brush goes in the shower bag, which doesn’t live in the bathroom. Take my shoes off at the door, so I don’t get street shit in my house. You follow?
Lol what? You edited your comment to make it look like I was making it of context statements, then QUOTED YOURSELF with the removed lines? real megamind move there.
I’m the one using products I researched and bought and tested, you’re the one just spouting off.
I have tinnitus and it sounds just like power supplies, except it comes from nowhere. So, when. I hear the squeal, I turn my head. If the squeal noise follows the movement of my head, tinnitus. If it stays put, power supply!
It’s like skunk and pot! (I’m in Canada, it’s legal and everywhere.) If I smell it, I look around. If I see a burrow, skunk! If I see a dozy looking dude with red eyes…
It’s funny that you mentioned pot. Because people described the reaction of pot sometimes in the way of OPs question: When you smoke weed, you get sensitive for things your brain normally is able to filter out as irrelevant information because your head can only process so much before it gets overwhelmed. Some people described that when they smoke weed, that they can sit in their living room or kitchen and start noticing the humming of the fridge or the buzzing of an electrical object as your synapses are wired “differently” when blocked by THC and you start to notice things, your brain normally suppresses.
Sorry for your tinnitus bro. I hope you find ways to make it bearable at times.
It’s funny, I had a horrible toxic job for way longer than any sane person should ever have to deal with, and one aspect of it was dangerous noise levels. We complained, and the company always sent “independent” inspectors who always found that the noise levels were juuuust inside the legal safe limit. Even when they added enough equipment to double the volume! Funny that… Anyways, I am now over six months gone from that job, and I just realized that my tinnitus is way better than it was! Ditto my mental health… Now I just need a winning lottery ticket or a not-soul-sucking job…
Reading people like you describe their tinnitus makes me think I have mild tinnitus myself… It’s not “loud” enough that I realize it’s there over the background noise of a house. But if things get really quiet, like in a power outage, or in a very nicely isolated room like a sound booth, I do hear a slight ringing that sounds extremely similar to CRT noise. I guess the years of blasting music in my headphones and metal/hardcore shows without earplugs didn’t help my case lol
Sometimes I wonder if my tinnitus is real or if we’re just so heavily surrounded by whines nowadays that it seems like tinnitus. I’ve been in an anechoic chamber and the first thing I noticed was that my ears weren’t ringing, but outside of that I have a near constant tinnitus-like whine in several frequencies that doesn’t go away even when I wear some kind of hearing protection. It’s weird.
It’s spread to being used by more entities than just BP, but the blame-shifting purpose remains the same.
Climate change can only be solved by regulating fossil fuel production at its source (e.g. taxing it enough to fully compensate for its negative externalities), not by trying to guilt-trip individuals.
The same trick is played with recycling. Blame the end consumer for a supply chain completely out of their control.
The biggest polluters are corporations and we stop their pollution by regulation. These mega corps would have you believe that it’s really your fault PFAS are everywhere because you shouldn’t have bought those Teflon coated products. Nevermind the fact that Teflon is everywhere a nonstick surface is needed.
The fact that teflon is still everywhere should be proof enough that regulations are worthless in the face of capitalism (a feature of course, not a bug)
Not really, PFAS have been almost completely unregulated. It is just in the last 2 years that we are starting to see PFAS regulations globally. Up until that point, we allowed companies to literally just dump them down the rain or in a lake.
If regulations were so worthless, you should be asking yourself why every single industry fights new ones. Why the supreme court in the US has taken a position to kill Chevron Deference which weakens federal agencies ability to regulate.
The failure isn’t regulations, the failure is a government system that severely neuters the ability of a government to regulate. The failure is a bunch of science denying corporate captured politicians that don’t care how they destroy the planet.
No, the failure is capitalism and those corporations not wanting to be regulated owning the governments making the regulations.
Which is precisely why any regulation under capitalism is toothless bunk, since it is designed by and for the corporations, to make sure they can keep making money despite it.
Once in a while having a regulation actually come in in time for it to have any impact is like a broken clock being right twice a day, not proof that regulation under capitalism do anything (you claim that teflon now being regulated means regulations work, but can you seriously not see that it taking that long to get bare minimum regulation after decades of pollution and poisoning of consumers is proof that regulations are merely a lip service paid by government to the public to pretend like they're acting in our favour?).
The point isn't - don't regulate industry, it's - at the point where industry has control of government, regulation is meaningless and always in their service, otherwise they wouldn't concede (a little like greenwashing - the oil companies commit to producing x amount of green energy, but what they don't tell you is that that x amount is a tiny fraction of their entire production capability, which they'll continue to use oil for. We're never going to get them to stop using oil, because they just don't have to, no legislation will ever be allowed to pass that will stop them. Which is why eating the rich and blowing up their pipelines is the answer, but I digress).
Eh, don’t really disagree with what you are saying. The problem is money and industry influence in politics and it’s something that needs to be eliminated. I don’t quiet take your point that regulations don’t matter. Assuming money and industry influence are removed from politics we’d see laws and regulations more line with the public interest over corporate interest.
Even if we fully ditched capitalism, you’d still need/want regulations setting the bounds on how government can/should operate.
Yep. The personal responsibility gambit (or should I say fallacy?).
It was such a clever idea, starting with Coca Cola’s “Litterbug” campaign (where they campaigned against bottle deposits under the guise of wanting “personal responsibility” over “regulations.”)
It’s “up to the consumer” to make the right choices. It just so happens that the meat from decently treated animals is five times more expensive and that you have to drive 100 miles to buy it. Or that being environmentally conscious has been made into a tiring exercise in futility where you constantly have to inconvenience yourself.
As an added bonus, individuals trying to convince other individuals to inconvenience themselves in the same way can be painted as obnoxious, holier-than-thou and insufferable. A real double win for unscrupulous big business.
Plenty of other ways from a carbon tax -- not least of which because the carbon tax has itself proven to be a convenient industry distraction that sucks air out of the room.
Especially since it's not clear removal tech will ever be able to ramp up sufficiently to cover continued burning.
A carbon tax is an albatross. It's not even worth seriously discussing. It's ten steps beyond politically infeasible -- probably even more infeasible than actual prohibition. It's innately regressive even if you try to do weird structural things like progressively returning the money (because the return is just going to be economically inefficient and complex tax codes ALWAYS benefit the poor and vulnerable the least).
And most importantly, the fossil fuels have to stay in the ground. We have already pumped out too much and we must move towards pumping no more.
The fossil industry would in many ways LOVE for a carbon tax solution because that would be the exception to prove the rule that continued extraction will be allowed forever. That their business model, which has plenty of cash already, can drill baby drill.
And in the meantime, we continue along the path of e.g. the IRA and invest heavily in alternatives, renewables, and infrastructure development. Fossil fuels are already a significantly more expensive energy source than solar and wind and that gap will only keep growing wider, ESPECIALLY if we delete fossil subsidies. And those learning curves are how we will kill fossils worldwide. Why should a developing nation with flexible climate ethics be importing Russian coal when they could be building renewable energy production that does not require importing a suspect commodity that will be even cheaper for them?
Then why does CCL actively promote carbon fee and dividend as its most beneficial policy? Your logic doesn’t even make sense - you’re saying the fossil lobby would love to be taxed further? Nonsense. If that were true, we’d have a carbon fee enacted decades ago. It’s not innately regressive, and your reasoning doesn’t even make sense because your entire premise rests on complexity = bad, not any actual logic. This isn’t to say it’s politically feasible, but you haven’t offered a politically feasible method for just stopping drilling altogether. All a carbon fee does is offer a revenue neutral way to slowly and surely shift everyone’s behavior by pricing in externalities. It’s very much viable and equitable, and if you think it’s somehow harder than banning fuel and banning capitalism you’re simply not being serious. We have a market mechanism to prevent bad behavior - taxes and fees. Let’s use them. Feel free to ban extraction too, but that’s not where I’ll be focusing my personal lobbying efforts.
Why does CCL, an organization that was founded by a bunch of neoliberal/Reaganomics businessmen specifically to advocate for setting up a carbon tax, advocate for a carbon tax. Hmm, let me think about that for a few minutes and get back to you...
There's so many voices in the climate movement saying the same things I do -- that chasing carbon taxes and similar politically radioactive policies is terrific waste of time and that we should instead focus on building incentives and public works towards research, infrastructure, and energy investment. But chase that white whale, have fun.
You can’t just call any market based solution “Reaganomics”, but ok. It’s logically inconsistent to say that carbon taxes are favored by industry and neoliberals, when those very people aren’t actually pushing for carbon taxes. Since neoliberals and industry have a stranglehold on policy and they haven’t done it, I must conclude you’re wrong. Why don’t you cite some of the voices "in the climate movement " that are against carbon taxes? I’m not seeing them. What I see is trust the science, and the desire to build political momentum that will results in the science based solutions coming into effect. Things like ending fossil fuels subsidies, requiring utilities switch to renewables, increasing vehicle emissions standards, incentives for electrification, and yes, carbon taxes.
I’m really curious what your actual solution is here. How are you going to get everyone to leave the oil and gas in the ground? A white whale is something you can’t actually find - seems like destroying capitalism or whatever your vague idea is fits that description much better than pricing in externalities via a tax, something that can very simply be layered in to our market structures with our current institutions (and something that is actually happening in dozens of countries, but is somehow impossible according to you).
George Shultz, one of the founders of CCL, was literally one of the guys who helped Regan craft his economic policy vision, and I'm sure many of those he brought on with him were part of that field too. I don't just call anything Reaganomics, but I DO call this shit that way.
If you seriously want to hear different voices, I recommend you start with David Roberts at Volts: https://www.volts.wtf/
He interviews everyone, has clear opinions, and backs up his positions with practical politics.
I already told you my actual solution. You didn't listen.
we continue along the path of e.g. the IRA and invest heavily in alternatives, renewables, and infrastructure development. Fossil fuels are already a significantly more expensive energy source than solar and wind and that gap will only keep growing wider, ESPECIALLY if we delete fossil subsidies. And those learning curves are how we will kill fossils worldwide. Why should a developing nation with flexible climate ethics be importing Russian coal when they could be building renewable energy production that does not require importing a suspect commodity that will be even cheaper for them?
What an odd revisionist characterization. Schultz was active in many administrations, including Regan’s. You’re both elevating his relevance to the movement (one which your own link at the Volt describes as left leaning grassroots campaigners) and mischaracterizing the entire approach. Reaganomics is synonymous with tax cuts, deregulation, and “trickle down”. A carbon fee and dividend is not a tax cut, it’s not deregulation, and it’s the opposite of trickle down. Schultz was also a key part of Montreal protocol, literally the most effective international policy of all time. Is the Montreal protocol “Reaganomics” as well?
There are many, many more people involved in CCL than you’re attempting to characterize here, including a wide mix of academics. That’s because they promote good policy.
As to the Volt article you linked, while interesting, all it says is that support tends to be static for the first few years in two countries. It should surprise anyone that conservatives in Alberta are still against a carbon tax a few years later. This isn’t even the right success metric - what matters is effectiveness over time. Public perception needs to be high enough to avoid a repeal, and not higher. You still haven’t addressed your original claim that the fossil fuels lobby is behind a carbon tax, which they so obviously are not.
Your “solutions” are a fine a slow way to transform one sector of the economy - electricity generation. That’s not enough, and it’s not fast enough. I’m not saying don’t do those things too - I love the IRA and I love federal efficiency standards and gas bans and all that good stuff, but no reason to argue against some rocket fuel to accelerate carbon reductions (and touch the rest of the economy).
Pretty sure if e.g. the US manages to pass a carbon fee, Greta herself wouldn’t say that fossil lobby won, she’d probably say great, now also do XYZ and raise the carbon price higher while you’re at it. That’s a much more mainstream attitude.
Pretty sure if e.g. the US manages to pass a carbon fee
But it won't. Politically radioactive. And in the meantime, you could've been advocating for policies that actually have traction. That build constituencies instead of tearing them down.
But whatever. You've got Faith in this policy and there's no point arguing with it.
I can walk and chew gum at the same time. I advocate for every policy that will reduce carbon emissions, and I will celebrate both a denied permit and a carbon tax instead of demonizing one of them. Maybe if otherwise likeminded folks like yourself didn’t spend so much time dumping on carbon taxes in favor of your “ideal” policy, we’d have slightly higher support.
It will then turn out to be completely uneconomical to use fossil fuels at their true price, as it should’ve been.
Renewables are ALREADY out-competing fossils joule for joule and learning curves are only making that delta bigger over time. The US has seen a spate of utilities buying up coal power plants just to shut them down because it is so uneconomical to operate them, yet still we have politicians vowing to support coal just because they like it / to own the libs.
The issue is that there are people who want to use fossil fuels. Many nations' entire economies depend on it. So they'll keep doing it. They'll sell and use the fuels in places that don't tax them, if they have to. They'll literally build demand. They'll push to get every molecule out of the ground and sold, even as returns diminish.
Not to even get into the conservative lunatics who want to keep using them on principle, even knowing they are an economically bad deal.
Even if you could get a carbon tax passed in the US (which is a giant, giant, giant "fat chance"), it'll have more leakage than the tattered Depends worn by all of our politicians.
Meanwhile, like with any tariff, the people hurt most by this carbon tax won't be the producers. Saudi Arabia is not going to agree to pay our taxes. Instead, it'll be the end consumers. Regressively, with the poorest and most vulnerable consumers who cannot afford to immediately electrify hurt the worst.
The philosophy of the IRA is the way to win this fight. Invest, incentivize, and do it progressively. Building a constituency all the way.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to be this extremist, there are other ways to solve climate change. But since we’re already trying to fix it getting rid of capitalism would be the best way because we wouldn’t be fixing just the climate issue, we’d also be fixing a whole slew of other issues that are just next in line after the climate issue.
Climate change can only be solved by regulating fossil fuel production at its source
I like this. Balance the cost equation of recycled plastic vs new plastic vs glass/metal (since glass and metal are basically infinitely reusable and recyclable) for single use and minimal use items so they’re more expensive and it tips the scales making many things far more financially-responsible to both produce and consume in a climate conscious manner
Hi there! Information security guy here. This is essentially a super quick Incident Response run-through of the basic tools I use for malicious process discovery on Windows hosts. I’m assuming this is your own personal machine, or you have permission to do this.
They are all included in the rollup installer, or you can grab them individually at those links. Don’t install everything, or at least don’t leave it all installed when you’re done. It includes a lot of tools for debugging, which you don’t want to leave lying around on your system.
Fire up Autoruns, and check under Logon and Scheduled Tasks tabs for any unusual entries. If you don’t know what something is, and the Publisher is listed as Microsoft, don’t mess with it. Any non-MS stuff in those 2 areas should be safe to disable without hurting your system.
Process Explorer gives you a live view of the processes running on your system, basically a more advanced version of Task Manager. You can scroll through it for unusual processes, and you can even check stuff like rundll.exe processes to see the arguments used to launch it, which is SUPER useful.
Process Monitor is essentially a history/ log view of all processes on your system, starting from when the program is run. Think wireshark, but for processes. You can filter out known-good processes. You can search for strings. If the process is launching, executing, and terminating too quickly to catch in Task Manager or Process Explorer, it will still show up in Process Monitor.
TCPView is sort of like netstat, but with lots more info. You can use that to watch for unknown network connections, in case the thing you’re seeing is performing some kind of network beaconing.
Lastly, I would personally check for 3rd party driver software like printer software, Razer or other HID controllers, sound card software, etc. I’ve seen third party hardware controller software do weird stuff like this, because most of it is so badly written. I’d almost be more surprised if it turns out to be malware, than if it turns out some HP Printer software is doing an ink check every 10 minutes or something.
Most of the IR that I do is within corporate production environments, so I can answer this with the tools I would use for Linux incident response, but there will be areas like Kernel Extensions that are MacOS-specific, which I don’t have IR experience in, and can’t speak to. Assume that sudo permissions are required for these.
Also note that I’m not including commands to look for active user intrusions (e.g. ssh keys, new users, sudoer edits, etc), just binary implantation like malware. Active human intrusion blows up the amount of places and things to check for, and for regular users who don’t have regulatory reporting requirements, you’re better off just restoring from a backup.
ps aux : This lists all processes running under all users, not attached to a terminal session. This is a static list, unlike the live-updating list you get with top
lsof -b -c |-u | -p -R : This lists open files. You can specify process names, PIDs, usernames, and more, to filter on. If you filter on PID, include the -R argument to get the parent process info for that process.
lsof -i : This lists open files that have an active network port.
netstat -antv -p tcp : It’s important to note that on MacOS, netstat doesn’t perform like it does on Linux (e.g. it won’t give you process names), so you need to use the Mac-specific flags for it like these, and you’ll need to combine that with lsof or ps to get more info about the processes.
There is apparently also a tool made by Apple called sysdiagnose that you can run to basically do a large-scale debug dump of your system, including lots of data about applications and processes. I can’t claim any personal experience with this, but this guide (and part 2 here) go into using it to hunt for malware.
Before the Internet, “networks” were mostly one-offs you would dial into with a modem. Big or small, users would dial into the systems to enjoy whatever content was available on them.
The Internet was created as a way to connect multiple, disparate network nodes like these. Now, instead of just letting people access your content, you could now let them access other people’s content as well.
There were lots of programs made to do this. IRC for chatting, Archie and Gopher for searching FTP sites for downloads you might want. There was also Usenet - a threaded discussion forum. The discussions looked a lot like Lemmy - there were subject lines and when you clicked on them there was threaded discussion you could read and participate in.
When this was all initially going on the Internet was mostly text-based. We may have been accessing Usenet from our Windows 3.1 laptops (I used a program called Agent), but all these programs were doing was trading text. Slowly though, bandwidth started creeping up.
As bandwidth began to creep up, people realized that huge text posts to Usenet could be used to post things like photos encoded to text. And thus was uuencoding born - and it didn’t stop at photos. But because Usenet posts are limited in size, big files would get posted as multiple parchives - in multiple sections/posts that could be stitched back together into a whole again.
It was in this way that Usenet - a system designed for conversation - became a way to trade files.
Meanwhile the web happened. Discussion quickly moved to the web because you didn’t have to download a separate program to view web forums. At the time, web forums were inherently inferior (they couldn’t do threaded discussion) but they were also inherently superior (they could be moderated). Yeah, Usenet was unmoderated and because of this it was basically a huge pile of dogshit by the time the web got huge.
Usenet did continue to flourish though - as this sort of Frankenstein file-sharing system. The problem is that most Usenet servers were hosted by ISPs because they wanted to host discussions - not file-sharing. So they shut their Usenet servers down. But the file sharing was just too useful to die, so dedicated Usenet providers popped up and picked up the slack where the local ISPs left off. It wasn’t hard. Usenet is just a protocol - anybody can adhere to it and create a node.
And clients changed too - from the readers I used like Agent, to new readers that recognized that people using Usenet aren’t looking for discussion anymore. They’re looking for an easy way to find the files they want and a program that will seamlessly stitch together all those PAR files behind the scenes for them to get it.
This was the purpose behind Newzbin, which was an elaborate way to access the remaining Federation of (now mostly dedicated, paid) Usenet servers and easily find and download all they had to offer. It was super easy and worked very well, so naturally, it was fucked into oblivion by Hollywood in 2010.
The great thing about Usenet though, is you can’t kill it by killing off one node. The other great thing is that it’s pretty stupidly complicated by today’s standards, so it still exists because it’s been largely forgotten while Hollywood focuses on stuff like torrenting.
If you want to access Usenet, you will need to purchase access to a company that runs a Usenet server and get client software that can help you find and stitch together those PAR files. I am out of the loop, so I am afraid I cannot help you any further with that. But hopefully if you know the history of it and how it works in theory, it should help.
Watch Wargames. The main character uses the Ethernet somewhat realistically compared to more modern “depictions” of “hackers,” and has to use an absolutely ancient modem to connect to the network.
That I can help. Back in the day, to access someone’s else computer you literally hooked up yours to a phone line. Your desktop would then dial to some number you got that had another computer listening to answer, and they would start a “conversation”. Your computer sent what to us would sound like noise, the receiving computer would listen to that noise and answer back. Voilá, you’re connected to a network!
Wow, this caught me off guard. I read an article about kids being given old tech and they knew people waved Polaroids (even though it doesn’t enhance development) from pop culture. Are young people really unaware that we used to dial with a modem to connect to the net?
Modem is short for modulator/demodulator. It took a data stream and encoded it onto tones, multiple (audible) frequencies were used to increase data rates. You had to dial in to either a server, another computer, or an ISP. If you picked up the phone you would hear what sounded like white noise.
I lost many a download, or ‘online’ game to my mother picking up the phone to make a phone call.
That’s very clear, thanks. I remember reading about the original phreakers, one guy had perfect pitch so he could just sing the tone to open a long distance line and then dial away. I think he got sued by one of the American phone companies for stealing.
There are some amazing stories about the cat and mouse games regarding phone phreaking. The “captain crunch whistle” is great. All their attempts at security, beaten by a bit of audible brute force, via a cereal box toy.
This brand of positivity you’re embodying is the most infectious one, and if I can feel it in your writing I imagine hearing it spoken from you would be some next level inspiration.
I’ve lost some people close to me over the years and what saddens me most is how I’ve forgotten so much about them beyond what they looked like. All of them except one…Gordon left behind audio recordings as his last messages to each of us in the group of friends.
Every time I hear his voice, it brings back so much about him that just can’t be said. His cadence, intonation, and overall manner of speaking have helped keep an entire person in my memory.
I wonder if that’s an option for you. I can say from experience that the lasting impact of audio is…powerful. Being able to actually hear my friend…i can imagine him speaking to me, and it’s in his voice because his voice is not forgotten.
Your family hearing your thoughts, in your voice…and being able to hear you speak long after your time…man, I can’t think of a better way to highlight your true personality and make it a lasting one.
The uploader deleted it so their drones can make social media posts claiming it was censored to generate more buzz and make sure everyone knows it exists.
Fascists are boring. It's the same strategy for almost a hundred years. Orwell on Hitler:
It is a pathetic, dog-like face, the face of a man suffering under intolerable wrongs. In a rather more manly way it reproduces the expression of innumerable pictures of Christ crucified, and there is little doubt that that is how Hitler sees himself. The initial, personal cause of his grievance against the universe can only be guessed at; but at any rate the grievance is here. He is the martyr, the victim, Prometheus chained to the rock, the self-sacrificing hero who fights single-handed against impossible odds. If he were killing a mouse he would know how to make it seem like a dragon. One feels, as with Napoleon, that he is fighting against destiny, that he can’t win, and yet that he somehow deserves to. The attraction of such a pose is of course enormous; half the films that one sees turn upon some such theme.
Today's mice are an incredibly marginalised and incredibly small sexual minority. But fascists will pretend they're not, that they're part of the elite trying to cause degeneracy. Not billionaire rapists like Musk or Trump.
Not as if fascists are going to actually fix the big shit, like the economy, the environment, or affordable housing. Not as if they're going to stand up to the countries actually threatening western values, like Russia or China. No. Now they've decided it's some nobody in the arse end of America, who feels happier wearing a dress.
People who fall for that shit are morons. Not that most fascists actually believe their own bullshit. They just do it shock and disconcert people, and because they hate those they perceive weaker than them. Just like their Dear Leader considers them scum, has regularly said he is disgusted by them, because they're so weak that they've chosen to lick his boots.
What you write on argumentative strategy absolutely pertains to the topic and I’d say it also holds true. I just don’t really see what it has to do with fascism. Aren’t you conflating a couple of things here?
Even when “Fascism traditionally employs that rhetoric” holds true, there’s no way that “Someone employing that rhetoric must be a fascist” can ever follow from that. A fascist might be a very special kind of moron, but it’s dangerous to then start calling every moron “fascist”, because it lessens the impact of that term, devalues it, if that makes sense. It makes undermining actual fascism much harder.
Their leader calls journalists vermin and they go on about the 'Lugenpresse', his followers shoot up synagogues, allied media spread Nazi/far right inspired anti-semitic canards like Cultural Marxism ('Kulturbolshewismus'), they go on about how the '''left wing intellectual elite''' are trying to undermine western values and cause a decline of morals and degeneracy ('Entartung'), they're afraid of difference, they hold the weak in contempt, they abhor nuance so use a limited newspeak vocabulary to limit critical reasoning, they're obsessed with plots, and on social media many of his followers spread the Q-anon conspiracy which is a reworking of the antisemtic blood libel canard.
Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, is a duck.
Here's a Sartre quote that's also increasingly relevant (again):
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
Their leader calls journalists vermin and they go on about the ‘Lugenpresse’, his followers shoot up synagogues, allied media spread Nazi/far right inspired anti-semitic canards like Cultural Marxism (‘Kulturbolshewismus’), they go on about how the ‘’‘left wing intellectual elite’‘’ are trying to undermine western values and cause a decline of morals and degeneracy (‘Entartung’), they’re afraid of difference, they hold the weak in contempt, they abhor nuance so use a limited newspeak vocabulary to limit critical reasoning, they’re obsessed with plots, and on social media many of his followers spread the Q-anon conspiracy which is a reworking of the antisemtic blood libel canard.
Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, is a duck.
I presume we’re no longer talking about the movie’s marketing department…?
Here’s a Sartre quote that’s also increasingly relevant (again):
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
What I’m reading here are things in the lines of “Good faith anti-Semitism doesn’t exist” or “anti-Semitism is intrinsically confrontational and quarrelsome”. I don’t quite think that’s a tenable position as it would be trivial to disprove. Am I misreading this? What is your take?
Are you sure the line is concerned with anti-Semitism in general and not only with a very specific kind of anti-Semite (e.g. mid-century, mid-Europe, Bierkellerputsch-y types)?
I said fairly based. The commenters preoccupation with the fascism connection was odd but the rest was pretty much on point for presenting a theory as to why the torrent had been removed and re-added. The commenter added additional commentary to present a parallel for what the torrent uploader was doing in order to obtain more public interest.
In reference to your last line, you realize that the vast majority of the political sector is financially vested in ‘taking action’ against piracy, right? And by financially vested I obviously mean bribed by corps like MGM or UMG et al.
I guess when I browsed a piracy board,I wasn’t really expecting a psychotic rant about Trump and other political shit. I don’t mind reading about some current court cases involving some piracy news and whatnot.
The Internet is saturated with orange man bashing and today’s current outrage bait. I’m bored of it. It’s not even remotely interesting anymore. Apparently, judging by the upvotes that person got, I’m in the minority.
Aaw shaaaame. Now you’re the victim after attacking someone else and calling them “psychotic”.
Lol.
You refuse to address their points deferring rather to a strategy of misdirecting using the name of the community. Any meat on your “psychotic rant” assertion? Nope. “This is a piracy board” …so you can dismiss thoughtful commentary on the topic that OOP has raised out of hand with nothing more than baseless accusations?
You want to hide behind etiquette and staying on topic but your posts in this thread are the most worthless meta commentary in the thread.
I can understand where you’re coming from but it’s not like the commenter lied. Both musk and trump have court cases involving sexual assault in various countries and our adversaries are getting one over on us because of the incompetence of every politician, not just left or right.
Perhaps I am seeing it in a different light but it sure seemed to me like billionaire and politician bashing as opposed to ‘orange man bashing’.
Social Anxiety Survival Horror. You’re a guy at a friend’s party trying to avoid conversations while putting in an appearance with your friend so they know you were here. You can deflect conversations with small talk you pick up by eavesdropping, but it won’t work on drunk people, so you also need to run and hide. Your ex-partner eventually shows up and is hunting you down to have a frank conversation about your relationship, which is instant game over.
I haven’t played it - and the “social anxiety as horror”-slant feels more metaphorical than literal in its marketing - but this makes me think of the game “Homebody” a bit
I had a very similar idea but it’s about avoiding contact and conversation out on the street and on public transportation. May or may not be influenced by real life experience.
Good. Someone, please make this. And make it first person for the full effect.
Other ideas for people to pinch:
You can only use each snippet of small talk once before collecting it again, because you’re afraid of repeating yourself.
The game is filled with collectibles, but they’re all located on the floor, so you’re more likely to find them if you’re in character and looking at the floor the entire time.
To pause the game, you have to look at your phone while standing in a quiet area.
Your ex-partner has a lengthy list of grievances you can hear when they’re hunting you. This includes “you always run away from me at parties”.
What about Panic Disorder Survival Horror? You have to get through a full week, including 5 work days, 2 social events, and an errand…except you can have a panic attack at any time but also have a heart condition, so you’re not sure if you’re really having a panic attack or heart attack. If you guess wrong, you lose. Also you have to have a completely empty bladder and colon so you don’t soil yourself at work and get fired or in a social setting and lose friends out of embarrassment if you happen to have a panic attack in those settings. Easy mode comes with a script for xanax. Hard mode comes with an abusive stalker ex and their family.
There are several ways of approaching that particular question. And none are simple, actually.
First, just to frame why 0/0 is so weird, consider 1/0. Asking “what’s 1/0” is like asking “what number when multiplied by 0 equals 1?” There’s no answer because any number multiplied by zero is zero and no number multiplied by zero is one.
So now on to 0/0. “What’s 0/0” is like asking “what number when multiplied by zero gives zero?” And the answer is “all of them.” 1 times 0 equals 0, so 1 is an answer. But also 2 times 0 is 0. And so is pi. And 8,675,309.
So, you could say that 0/0 doesn’t have a single answer, but rather an infinite number of answers. That’s one way to deal with 0/0.
Another way is with “limits”. They’re a concept usually first introduced in calculus. Speaking a bit vaguely (though it’s definitely worth learning about if you’re curious, and it seems you are), limits are about dealing with “holes” in equasions.
Consider the equasion y=x/x. With only one exception, x/x is always 1, right? (5/5=1, 1,000,000,000/1,000,000,000=1, 0.00001/0.00001=1, etc.) But of course 0/0 is a weird situation for the reasons above.
So limits were invented (by Isaac Newton and a guy named Leibniz) to ask the question “if we got x really close to zero but not exactly zero and kept getting closer and closer to zero, what number would we approach?” And the answer is 1. (The way we say that is “the limit as x approaches zero of x divided by x is one.”)
Sometimes there’s still weirdness, though. If we look at y=x/|x| (where “|x|” means “the absolute value of x” which basically means to remove any negative sign – so if x is -3, |x| is positive 3) when x is positive, x/|x| is positive 1. When x is negative, x/|x| is negative 1. When x is 0, x/|x| still simplifies to 0/0, so it’s still helpful to our original problem. But when we approach x=0 from the negative side, we get “the limit as x approaches 0 from the negative side of x/|x| is -1” and “the limit as x approaches 0 from the positive side is (positive) 1”. So what gives?
Well, the way mathematicians deal with that is just to acknowledge that math is complex and always keep in mind that limits can differ depending which direction you approach them from. They’ll generally consider for their particular application whether approaching from the left or right is more useful. (Or maybe it’s beneficial to keep track of how the equasion works out for both answers.)
I’m sure there are other ways of dealing with 0/0 that I’m not directly aware of and haven’t mentioned here.
So, to wrap up, there are some questions in mathematics (like “what’s 0/0?”) that don’t have a single simple answer. Mathematicians have come up with lots of clever ways to deal with a lot of these cases and which one helps you solve one particular problem may be different than which one helps you solve a different problem. And sometimes “there’s no right answer” is more helpful than using clever tricks. Sometimes the problem can also be restated or the solution worked out in a different way specifically to avoid running into a 0/0.
It’s definitely unfortunate that they don’t teach some of the weirdness of mathematics in school. But something I haven’t even mentioned yet is that all of what I’ve said above assumes a particular “formal system.” And the rules can be quite vastly different if you just tweak a rule here or there. There’s not technically a reason why you couldn’t work in a system which was just like Peano Arithmetic (conventional integer arithmetic) except that 0/0 was by definition (“axiomatically” – kindof “because I said so”) 1. (Or 42, or -10,000, or whatever.) That could have some weird implications for your formal system as a whole (and those implications might render that whole formal system in practice useless, maybe), or maybe not. Who knows! (Probably someone does, but I don’t.) (Edit: looks like howrar knows and it does indeed kindof fuck up the whole formal system. Good to know!)
One spot where mathematicians have just invented new axioms to deal with weirdness is for square roots of negative numbers. The square root of 1 is 1 (or -1), but there’s no number you can multiply by itself to get -1.
…right?
Well, mathematicians just invented something and called it “i” (which stands for “imagionary”) and said “this ‘i’ thing is a thing that exists in our formal system and it’s the answer to ‘what’s the square root of negative one’ just because we say so and let’s see if this lets us solve problems we couldn’t solve before.” And it totally did. The invention(/discovery?) of imagionary numbers was a huge step forwards in mathematics with applications in lots of practical fields. Physics comes to mind in particular.
I remember thinking that women gave birth to girls and men gave birth to boys, and being really worried because I (as a guy) didn’t want to give birth.
I didn’t understand how lie detectors were supposed to work so I thought you could hook someone up and ask something like “does god exist” and you’d be able to get answers to all of life’s big mysteries.
I thought there was a left and right sock
I thought wolverines were mythical creatures
I thought if I tried hard enough I could somehow become older than my older brother like it was just a title or something
Thanks to DARE any time I saw a skittle with the S missing I thought it was drugs even in a newly opened package
I wanted an older sibling as a child and I remember trying to convince my parents they should have another baby. In my mind, if I just waited (my age +1) years, I’d then have an older sibling. It never ocurred to me that I would also age during that time…
I was an only child and I just wanted someone cool to play with me who I could look up to. Also all my older cousins picked on me and I wanted defence lol
Your comment about your brother reminds me that in kindergarten I thought that the line order (alphabetical) had something to do with status. My last name starts with C so I was pretty close to the front, but I had a friend with an A for a last name, so I really wanted to move up.
I told no one of this of course until long after I’d grasped how alphabetical ordering worked myself.
Why do not more people choose a matrix server and use a decentralized way of communication instead of committing themselves to this or that app/company?
Because most people they know use WhatsApp/Facebook/Instagram.
I found a server in the list I posted that was hosted by people in my area and funded by donations. I got in touch with them and they even implemented some bridges with that server. Now I am using it with a WhatsApp bridge, feels pretty seamless.
Not sure when you tried it or with which app but you can use it just like an instant messenger. It can do more like discord but this can easily very ignored.
I have heard that once it was a pain to use as a client but since I started using it half a year ago it felt pretty smooth.
kbin.life
Top