I have 3 old DreamSpark Windows 7, 8 and 10 Pro licenses I’ve been upgrading/reusing between my main PC and laptop, so I haven’t bothered looking at the state of spoofing the MS activation process in years. Holy crap now it’s literally just on GitHub lol, used to have to download some zip on a random forum or a dodgy torrent…
People are naive if they think the .ml admins and devs don’t intend to keep their thumb on the Lemmy scale. More instances need to take this threat seriously and defederate from .ml, and possibly even fork the Lemmy repos for when the devs inevitably decide they want to start building quiet exploits into the code. There are serious cyber security implications here that people are sleeping on
Yep. Something needs to change if we want Lemmy to be something besides a place for Soviet simps to hide from criticism. Authoritarianism cannot be tolerated.
You’re bored of people pointing out your hypocrisy?
But it’s not surprising, you’re not supposed to be entertained by it, you’re supposed to think about it…
What is there to think about? I complain about people who support Soviet-style dictatorships having full control over online platforms moderating exactly as one would expect, and I get told by Random Guy On The Internet #368,452 that I’m apparently a hypocrite because wanting action to be taken to stop authoritarians from controlling social networks makes me the real authoritarian or something. All this to “suit my agenda”, which in this case is wanting to be able to say that authoritarians are bad.
God forbid I find arguments like that incoherent and unworthy of taking seriously.
I’m apparently a hypocrite because wanting action to be taken to stop authoritarians from controlling social networks makes me the real authoritarian or something
No, you’re a hypocrite because you see “them” censoring “you” and you scream “censure, you can’t do that!!”, but when it’s “your” side is censuring “them”, then you have no complaints, because obviously “your” censure is good, and their is “bad”.
Or maybe I’m wrong and you’re against censure in general? :)
I complain about people who support Soviet-style dictatorships having full control over online platforms moderating exactly as one would expect
I will ask in good faith: given that those people started the whole project to have that space, but built it using federated technologies which allow others to run their places, what is exactly the basis for your complaint? As absurd as they might be, instances can decide their own moderation policies, whether you or I agree with them or not. Given the fundamentally distributed nature of this platform, there is no such thing as “having full control”, and instead we can choose instances based on our preferences, so we are free to not subject ourselves to those policies, they are free to do, and both a free to use the platform in the way we use. The code is open, there are plenty of other instances. What exactly is the complaint here?
There are serious cyber security implications here that people are sleeping on
No, there are not.
At most, if they decide to kill the project by adding malicious code they can affect Lemmy itself. 99% of users don’t run Lemmy (which is where the “quiet exploits” would run), and the frontend simply doesn’t allow you to have a serious impact, unless you think they will stumble upon a browser 0-day and they decide to burn it by committing the exploit to an open source repo instead of selling it for millions (or use it elsewhere).
What’s with the fearmongering? Their stance is crystal clear since ever.
possibly even fork the Lemmy repos
Right, and who maintains the fork? Who, among the large population of external contributor, I mean?
What do u mean their arnt any security issues here. Ive played enough 2b2t to know a backdoor makes u a literal fucking god. If u own all the servers u have everyone’s ip, u can control everyone’s interaction. U can can literally 1984 the entire federated history. Do u not see the issue here they could take control of your account post cp then report ur ip and get u locked up for long time.
I am a security engineer by profession, so I do have at least a decent understanding of what I am talking about. Every server in this case has that potential. There is nothing preventing any admin from patching code and manipulating the network after TLS termination (I.e., changing payloads of POST requests etc.). That said, not even in a videogame you would be “locked up” by someone posting CP on your behalf like that. This is simply not a threat and if you think it is, then you should be worried about every website you visit.
I was so amazed at how common they were. I spent a year in Australia and probably saw more kangaroos day by day than I see all wild animals combined day by day here in the UK (excluding birds).
Hell I grew up in North Wales and may have seen as many kangaroos day by day as I saw sheep here, and that’s saying something.
Human genes only really “work as intended” when they are combined from very different sets.
So-called “recessive” genes are overruled by your partner’s different pile of genes. They are usually shit traits like soggy bones or hair growing backwards, but since they never dominate, they haven’t been naturally selected away. They’re just harmless baggage.
You can still get them because it’s all random, but the likelihood is generally low.
If you don’t have that difference in mating genes, more of these recessive genes get to have a say in building the human. This severely increases the likelihood of birth defects.
That just reminded me of the only community I really miss from reddit, r/neverbrokeabone. Lemmy just doesn’t have the number of users to support such a niche community.
But yeah, there were all sorts of good insults there for when people broke a bone. “Soggy-bones mother fucker” would have fit right in.
Not necessarily true. Presumably there would be a terms of service you’d know about before takeoff. And any of it could easily be voluntary rather than mandatory.
Yes. Nonetheless, I'd like to direct you to watch a scene in the series It's always sunny in Philadelphia named "the implication" and try to apply it to Mars.
In any long term colony, with hard constrained resources, a lot of individual rights will have to fall below the collective requirements. The collective needs will have to supercede the individual. It’s a classic “Tragedy of the commons” situation, otherwise.
Mandatory pregnancy is likely not one of them however. More likely mandatory birth control, with all pregnancies being planned. There will also likely be strong incentives to widen the gene pool.
E.g. A couple might be allowed 1 child by default, with additional requiring either that they already have a useful level of general diversity, or that doner eggs or sperm are used.
Even simple financial incentives could achieve the same effects, if done right.
Then science better get going on artificial, external wombs. A lot of people would be overjoyed to be able to have kids without the physical risk of pregnancy, and the technology seems like it’d be mandatory for true colonization efforts
I don’t know that I agree. Or rather, I agree, but come to the opposite conclusion.
I think that as we take our first steps into the broader universe, we have to consider the ethics and morality that we’re stepping out with. If we choose people based on (let’s face it) arbitrary genetic variation, independent of their ability to perform the tasks assigned or their representative value to the human race as a whole, that means that as we plant our flag on the Martian soil, we’ll be taking eugenics with us.
The minimum viable population of a species is about 50. In order to prevent genetic drift over time you need closer to 500, but we’re sapient; we can implement genetic therapies when needed to help maintain allele frequency while the population is growing. And, in reality, operating a long-term Martian colony is probably going to need more than 50 people anyway; a recent NASA study suggested 25 would be enough, but previous research said 100+ would be necessary.
And keep in mind, an actual Martian colony doesn’t have to be self-sustaining in a complete vacuum (ha) for centuries. It will probably be only a generation or two before regular travel between the two planets will be possible. Plus, if we build and maintain a lunar colony first, the initial population of a Martian colony can be much larger.
In short, I think I’d rather work harder and send more people so that we can ensure we’re maintaining our values, than allow such a retrograde idea as eugenics to poison our first venture toward being a multi-planet species.
They aren’t necessarily bad as such, just “random and unfiltered”.
Dominant genes get “battle tested” all the time, by definition. The harmful ones are likely to result in a human that can’t survive or have children, while the good ones remain.
Recessive isn’t always bad. In fact, many (maybe all) genetic traits have a dominant and a recessive information.
For example peas. Let’s say there is a gene for colour. The dominant variation of the colour gene carries the information “green”. Let’s call this gene c for colour. Then there is a recessive variation with the information yellow.
We’ll write the dominant information as capital C and the recessive as lowercase c.
Now there is a pea with the genetic information CC (one from each parent). That’s a green pea.
Then there is one with Cc (father green, mother yellow). But you see the pea and it looks just like a green pea. Because the green gene C is dominant and the yellow c is recessive. You don’t know, that this is a mixed variety.
If two seemingly green peas pollinate each other, but under the hood, they are Cc, then they might produce a cc yellow pea.
For a lot of genetic information that’s not a problem, they are just different characteristics and not harmful.
But if you have B = your blood coagulates normally, and b = your blood doesn’t thicken, you just bleed out and die when you have a paper cut…
Then inheriting b from both of your parents is a terrible fate.
This happened in the House of Saxe-Cobourg and other nobility in the 19th century.
Edit: the last part is actually a bit more complicated, but the explanation of dominant and recessive still works.
Good luck convincing people who live outside dense population zones to bike 3 hours to work. And “just move” is not an option. Think rents and home prices are bad now? If everyone moved to cities imagine the price gouging.
E: for the record I’m all about public transportation, it’s just unrealistic to think we completely ditch cars. They are too useful so EVs make sense going forward
Imagine how much cheaper cities could be if 2/3rds of the real estate wasn’t parking? Also, moving doesn’t necessarily mean going to New York. It can also just mean moving closer to your job in a small town. Which would also be easier if you could turn all the parking lots into homes.
No reasonable people are expecting someone that lives rural to bike into town. Going between rural homes and cities is one of the places where personal cars are unavoidable. Ideally, they drive to the edge of town and park next to a subway station that they take most of the rest of the way.
My work is near by a train stop, but there’s very little way for be to get there. There isn’t a bus or walkway, so I’d need to Uber or bike. The other issue is that it would make my one hour commute about two hours, which is infeasible for me currently.
I agree, but people still need to get to commuter stations. Plus take towns the size of 400 people who commute 40 miles to work, they aren’t getting a train stop for decades, maybe longer. EVs are a good solution for them now.
That isn’t really an argument for EVs but rather an argument to build a train stop near them ASAP.
EVs are an interim “solution” at best in the vast majority of cases and the majority of resources should flow to the actual solution instead which is not the case in the slightest.
Right, that was my point. A 300 person town isn’t going to get a train station before Missouri’s capital city, so we’re talking decades before they have access.
So yes, EVs should be the choice for car purchasers, but people should always push for better transit.
Right and that was not my point. The 300 person town should get a train station nearby aswell as Missouri’s capital city. I see no reason why one should wait on the other.
If you’re telling me that’s impossible because there aren’t enough resources to do both simulatneously, I can show you an industry that is currently wasting a ton of resources to build poor interim solutions touted as saviours of the world.
I’m telling you that’s impossible from an average person standpoint. You don’t have a government that actively tries to stop building rail. Midwest states are literally trying to stop federal money from coming in to build rail. We protest, we argue, but people are literally voting against that.
In Iowa they’re literally just trying to build passenger rail from the eastern side of the state to Chicago, a couple hour round trip - and their extremely conservative governor is trying to kill the project even though the rails are already there and a good chunk of the funding would come from the federal government. All of your points I agree with, but kindly what the hell else are we supposed to do? We vote, we fight, we protest, but still these idiots vote for more idiots and projects that would literally help us get killed.
So yes, I’m going to push for EVs in those areas for those who actually want to change their habits. I’m not going to actively encourage they keep buying massive trucks that spew pollution, since that’s apparently the only alternative you can give us.
I agree with you, I don’t know what else you want from me, I agree there should be more rail. But for those who actually want it when no one wants to build it, what are they supposed to do? Driving ice cars is knowingly killing the planet, and EVs is a solution for those people who live in places where their government literally tries to kill public transit.
If you know of a way that we haven’t tried that we should be doing, I’m all ears. Short of suddenly receiving 6 billion dollars to go build it myself - I don’t know what magical thing you want us to be doing that we’re not trying already.
I’m telling you that’s impossible from an average person standpoint.
I don’t care about this mythical “average person”.
You don’t have a government that actively tries to stop building rail.
I wish man, I wish.
Just because you have it extremely bad in the U.S. doesn’t mean the rest of the world is doing great, even if it’s quite a lot better. “Quite a lot better” than “extremely bad” still turns out to be “pretty bad”.
Midwest states are literally trying to stop federal money from coming in to build rail. We protest, we argue, but people are literally voting against that.
(More U.S. politics BS)
The reasons for that are a different discussion on an entirely different thing that is a general problem that affects all kinds of sectors and has nothing to do with transport specifically.
I only care about the factually-based way forward, not what a bunch of brainwashed monkeys licking aristocrat arses have to say about it.
Eliminating said monkeys is an entirely separate discussion to me.
I’m going to push for EVs in those areas for those who actually want to change their habits.
That’s the part I most disagree with. The people who haven’t been brain washed quite as much yet should be desiring the proper solution, not the bad “solution” that will still get us killed.
Presenting BEVs as our lord and saviour will do the opposite of that.
I’m not going to actively encourage they keep buying massive trucks that spew pollution, since that’s apparently the only alternative you can give us.
Not once in my argument have I mentioned or implied trucks as a valid alternative to BEVs.
Driving ice cars is knowingly killing the planet, and EVs is a solution for those people who live in places where their government literally tries to kill public transit.
That’s the thing, it’s not a solution; it’s a minor mitigation. It’s still killing our living space but not quite as badly. That is obviously preferable but nowhere near a solution.
What I want is BEVs to be seen for what they are, not for what they aren’t. As a means to an end, BEVs are okay. They’re not an end however and that’s what they’re widely seen as. That’s what I find incredibly dangerous.
So we agree?! That public transit is obviously better, we should push governments to build it, that EVs are not a solution but a temporary mitigation, and that ICE vehicles are bad for our planet.
Why do you continue arguing with me if you agree with me?! I told you I agree with all of your points, you just keep coming after me. I literally do not know what you want from me
Why are you putting so much effort into arguing with me who agrees with, I’ll say, 95ish% of what you said, instead of going out and pushing this hard on people who are literally trying to kill public transit? Go argue with them.
so few people live in rural areas (as opposed to suburban cowboys who wonder why their :rural area" has so much traffic) that it's a rounding error. like who cares about the middle of nowhere. it's a distraction to even bring it up. this conversation is explicitly about metropolitan areas
I agree, but just to clarify a minor point: small rural towns are actually some of the most walkable and bikable because they were built before cars. If you’re staying within a rural town, you don’t need a car.
The problem is not the people who live far from decent public transport but those people who live in the city and uses it every day, on city, all roads are always for vehicles like cars and trucks, instead to be for pedestrian and for bikes. On bad connected places a car can make sense but most of the people in city have cars when they rarely go outside, they could rent a car and would be cheaper for them for those days they need to move away. About EV, I think we still have the same problem, but the waste it generates keeps on ground instead flying on air.
You summarized perfectly the problem I see with the “fuck cars” crowd. They never acknowledge the need for cars in some cases. America’s population centers are definitely large cities where public transportation SHOULD be championed, but there has to be an acknowledgement of the rural population (around 15% in America I believe) where cars are a necessity.
Not what I said, but go ahead and make your absurd conclusions. Just for the record, I’m 100% for public transportation, EVs, renewable energy, and getting off the fossil fuel tit.
If we’re ever going to pull people along the path to that future, we have to accept and acknowledge the exceptions. Not all the time, but don’t ignore it like most articles I’ve read on the topic. I believe division occurs when people feel they are being ignored.
Honestly, I’m part of that 15%, and I feel more excluded by people pretending we can’t have mass transit just because my neighbors like big trucks than I am by people in cities not bringing me and my concerns up every time cars are mention.
Rural communities got along just fine before the invention of the automobile. In fact, most of the people who have ever lived have been rural people without cars. The idea that we can’t have small walkable towns connected to decent mass transit is just incredibly stupid, and it pisses me off when everybody just assumes it’s unsolvable, moreso when it’s people who actually live here and should know better.
I agree with the idea of small communities being interconnected with a massive distribution of public transit. I would love to walk everywhere from my daily necessities, but still making it easy to get to larger social centers for other needs. I think that should be the goal we strive for as a society.
People do do this. Just because you don’t, doesn’t mean no one else does. I’ve had discussions with multiple people trying to convince me that anyone who drives a car is evil.
The rural population isn’t the issue, it’s suburbia which is where the majority of the US population lives.
It’s not dense enough for public transportation to be viable and it’s zoned in a way that makes pedestrian traffic a non starter.
Suburbia causes a lot of problems. I understand why it exists - owning a house with a yard is nice. I personally wouldn’t want to give that up to live in an urban environment if I didn’t have to
reform zoning at the state level and put in protected bike lanes literally everywhere. also kind a lot of people can do a little biking. I can so some trips by bike in by inner ring suburban area
The OP said nothing at about reducing the use of cars, and what’s more, people make the same objection about rural people needing a car to get to town even in discussions explicitly about creating walkable cities. Even if we read into the question an implication that we should ditch cars, where does the idea come from that it must happen everywhere, all at once? The argument feels disingenuous.
Good luck convincing people to give up their horses for these new fangled “automobiles.” Did you know this “gasoline” is highly flammable? A horse go go anywhere you can, and doesn’t need a “road.” Who’s going to pay for, build, and maintain these “roads” anyway?
The longer you use linux excluslively, you don’t think about windows or mac. You think about fedora or suse, kde or gnome, yay or apt, distrobox or toolbox.
That is…true, actually. The longer I use Linux, the more I’m like “…but what if, man, what if I ditch Arch for Fedora or NixOS or give Pop_OS! another chance (and i very well might when Cosmic launches)?” And sometimes I do…and then always come crawling back.
Going back to Windows full time ain’t even crossed my mind for a hot minute. Partly because i have a spare driver running it for emergencies (that i barely use anyways, only because Windows literally runs one important app that I need, that I can’t run on Linux), and partly because going back means being stuck with Windows 11 again, and I really dislike Windows 11’s design choices, personally (and Microsoft in general, but i digress).
Oh I know it can be installed, but after the headache I got re-installing 10 once before and then trying to get 11 running on…anything, really, i just decided “you know what? What will be will be at this point. I’m not gonna need it for much anyways.” when i finally got 11 to accept and install into a random external drive that i never really used (it didn’t like the one i had inside my PC reserved specifically for it. Somehow…).
(Note: this was a while back, so installation could be a helluva lot better now and i have upgraded a bit since then but, shrug. Already got Windows ready to go on a drive, and only have it because I might need it moreso than me actually wanting to have it, so meh)
-R removes a package. -Rs makes sure that all the then-unused dependencies are also removed along with it. -Rns is not really recommended for general use, but the -n flag removes configuration backup files (in case you consider those bloat).
This is the correct answer. All of the other explanations are dancing around this: no matter what YOU think of a particular product, if a customer is willing to buy it then YOUR opinion must be the wrong one.
I think OPs point was the exact opposite. They give three examples where “matters of taste” are narratives guided by boardroom profit in the last twenty years rather than actual consumer preference.
People didn’t want bigger cars. Corporations made bigger cars to circumvent American fuel efficiency regulations (because it’s cheaper to circumvent a law than it is to make a more efficient engine), and convinced consumers bigger is better. Size difference between the #1 selling truck in 1950 and 1990 is nothing compared to the difference between pre-CAFE and present day.
People don’t want huge, fattening meals when they go out. It’s cheaper for companies to give “more”, “saltier”, and “fattier” meals than it is to create “tastier” ones, and for the most part we’ve been hoodwinked again. I’m talking about the “buy one for here get one free to take home” promotions at Applebee’s.
People have been convinced owning a home is “the American dream”. Construction companies have found they can put a 2800sqft house on a .25 acre plot just as easily as they can a 1400sqft house, so that’s all they build. “Starter homes” aren’t as profitable as they used to be, so the companies are banking on the narrative they’ve created to force people out of apartments and into gigantic houses because it’s the “American dream”.
Inevitably the manager turns out to be some kid who isn’t any other than the staff member, and has no more authority anyway because the real powers that be are all in corporate offices.
The manager only has any real power if the business is privately owned not a branch of some megacorp.
No it’s not. The original coined saying is, “The customer is always right.” “In matters of taste” was added much later to try to temper the idiocy, and has never really widely caught on.
Unfortunately it’s become part of internet lore, I think it will last a long time as a reference or old in-joke. Luckily Lemmy is also giving us new ones, like beans or the 3-day no-poop challenge.
Tip: Just like on old Reddit, you have to use two spaces after a line to get a proper line break.
View the source on this comment if you need an example.
In my neighborhood, a police chase ended in three teenagers pancaking their car into a house at 60 mph. They perished. All the houses had ring cams. Somehow astonishingly none of those cams were ever used against the police. Curious. ACAB every day. Also fuck Amazon.
Yes, it was 3 AM. They went out of their way to say that out wasn’t their fault because it was not a high speed chase. Despite the police vehicle pursuing at the same speed but one tenth of a mile behind until about a quarter mile away. The kids plow into the house and the cop turns off the lights at that point and drove right past it. Stating they didnt see it. It was under a street light. The camera would have proven they slowed down to look at it. The cops didn’t do anything or report it. It wasn’t until people walked by and happened to see the car at 6:30 am and called 911 did anyone show up. Fuck police.
Same thing happened at my work place. Some kid was drunk, being chased by cops, and crashed his car into the building next to my work. Car crashed, flipped, and caught on fire, he burned alive. They claim he had gotten away from them and they saw nothing. It was reported by people driving past as in your case, but there were holes in police story and evidence of the contrary. My boss had disconnected the front cameras a bit prior and hadn’t gotten around to reconnecting them, unfortunately, so we’ll never know :(
It won’t. The kind of people who would offer themselves up to be killed for the good of humanity aren’t the kind of people who make a billion dollars unless they hit the lottery a few times in a row.
That’s what gets me when people defend billionaires. You could take 99 percent of that and they’d still have 10 million dollars which is still multiples of what the average worker makes in a lifetime. They could still live without a worry in the world.
Since when does wealth be shared when someone dies ?
No, the money will go to their descendants who will try to get even richer than their parents. A large part of that money will also be taken by the state because ?? and ??.
I want the same thing I just don’t think taking what is inherited is the way to do it.
I would much rather see the ultra-rich pay properly their taxes when they are alive.
It’s not like taking inheritance money is the only way to finance things. I don’t see the reasoning.
I can totally understand why someone with huge revenue would pay more taxes but I don’t see why someone who inherits has to pay taxes at that exact moment.
In any case, I think you are missing the point and answering the question “for what purpose?”. Instead of “why?”.
I want to know why it’s more logical to pay taxes when you die rather than paying them in the first place when you got the revenue.
Obviously, the money collected is useful I just don’t see why it has to be collected when it is a time of sorrow for a family.
Also where I live it’s like 50% of the inheritance that is taxed. It is not just significant, it is 50% of the work of a life that goes in one shot to the state when someone dies.
Edit: I was mistaken, I did some calculations and a practical example: If I inherited 200 000€ I would have to pay around 18 194€ (20%)for one taxation and some additional applies but it’s nowhere near what I was told. This rate goes from 5% to 45% for the largest inheritance. In reality, to get a 45% taxation in France I would have to inherit more than 1.5 million euros.
I still think this taxation is too high and I regret that my comment is not clear. I don’t want less taxation overall I just think it makes more sense to take the money over time on the revenues. Anyway, taxation for inheritance is still something people here are very much concerned about. Parents want their children to inherit as much as possible of their wealth obviously so seeing a good chunk going to taxation is not great. Again I’m ok to pay taxes. But we have 192 different taxes here (that’s the exact number calculated in 2014) so I would prefer a system where most of the taxation comes from revenues and what you own and that’s it.
I’m curious where you live? Because many places have laws like that. Almost NO WHERE do the ultra rich actually pay that. There’s always loop holes built in for them.
Yeah, then we would all have so much more money all of a sudden, that would mean we could all buy so much more stuff. That’s definitely how money works.
kbin.life
Top