civopsec

People got better at something they practiced?

> Though many people have this pervasive fear, research has shown that most strangers are perfectly happy to be spoken to, leaving this common fear unfounded.

They could be happy because it’s a nice change of pace. But what would happen if 20% of people started interacting more with other people? Would that be liked, or would people be annoyed with that?

> Social interaction is very important and has many well-documented benefits, such as increased happiness, better health, and stronger sense of belonging.

This has become yet another thing for me to worry about: how many “cigarettes worth” am I smoking by not socializing enough? Thanks, media.

I am almost never lonely alone. (Being along isn’t terribly fun but it doesn’t feel bad, either.) Only together with other people. Because I see what they have and what I don’t. Then I blame myself for my jealousy—it is mine, after all. But jealousy is a social thing too, is it not? And that’s kind of the kicker. Feeling out of place, unworthy, being bothered by the well-adjustedness of others is also part of the social game. So yeah, they get to have better blood pressure, better longevity, and so on—good for them. But I wonder: was their joy and happiness a social co-creation, while my less-than-happy disposition (again, in the proximity of other people) was self-inflicted? Because it wasn’t like I just looked at the bare facts (as presented to me) of other people’s lives and then felt bad—I was also informed, in no uncertain terms, of what was acceptable, good, wholesome, and what was deservedly labeled as miserable and degenerate.

And yet they will be happy together while my misery is almost only mine—(1) it was self-inflicted, (2) there is no one else to blame but “society”, which is too vague, and (3) being upset at others would just lower my status further.

And I also will be quiet about this to others. Because no one wants to hear about it. But I will know. And they will know. And I will say “it was fine”. And they will judge me or don’t care. And I will think that they judge me.

You know how “cloud stuff” are remote files, right? And that files can be stored locally? Well there exists a thing called encrypted password managers that are just files (a file) that are stored locally (as in not on the cloud. The storage thingy on your computer. Yeah, your laptop, exactly!)

Local storage: it’s a thing.

No appreciation from me.

(Not OP) Very little overall. I do most things on my laptop. I’m not logged in on this site since I don’t comment via my phone.

I don’t do online banking on my phone. I use a payment app which requires a pin.

I hate doing tasks on some touch screen.

I use a password database (a file, local) which is unlocked with a passphrase/word. It takes about five seconds to unlock. This works for me since I almost only use accounts on laptops/desktops.

> She's not stupid, don't downplay her intelligence.

You say that. And yet.

> because line go up

The fact that they are Stanford law professors means that it all works out. Somehow. (That part surely must have been relevant in that sentence, since it was included.)

> It's so wrong that rich folks can just skip jail. I'm just reading Harari's Sapiens, and one of his points is that it's crazy that today it's accepted that poorer people are discriminated against. That many people think that being poor is a not something that happens by chance, but by people being lazy or dumb.

Maybe Harari doesn’t realize that the true arbiters of right and wrong—no matter what people might think—are people with power. And often is people who are rich, although they might have no formal power.

In that light it is not strange.

> In any case, it suffers a little for what I think is the naive thesis of "if only mankind could cooperate like the animals do, we would live in a utopia." Of course, mankind has demonstrated through thousands of years of history that tribes of men can't really cooperate in any grand sense, so the point seems rather moot.

In one paragraph you say that his biological observations are still held in high regard. (Nothwithstanding that the science of such things was farily “underdeveloped”, he protested… you know, like how people massively protest against Darwin’s theories, from about the same era?) Then you take a dump on those same observations in the next paragraph because people who have lived in class societies, under strict hierachies (that’s all of recorded history, yes) weren’t nice to each other? Well… why do you think anarchists proposed an alternative to that?

You know what is utopian? To build a society on such a flawed human nature as what we have, centred around our selfish shortcomings—basing socity on on subjugation, oppression, and exploitation, so that (predictably) the ones who are vile and strong will take as much for themselves as they can and exploit the rest—see history—and for us collectively to doom ourselves by ruining the planet by pillaging it of its resources and all kinds of ecological balance. That’s utopian!

But congrats on your ebook project. Your pathetic little gloss demonstrates how classic literature is often wasted like pearls before swine.

Solidarity is all about mutuality… doesn’t matter what pretenders and virtue signallers in the digital age try to lead you to believe.

Yes, it is further butchered in a footnote.

Actually if the author butchers the phrase then such acknowledgements don’t matter. Actually it makes it worse…

I’ve got this sword of Damocles[1] hanging over my head right now; I don’t know whether I should have turkey dinner tonight or homemade pizza. Such swords of worry come up in my head quite often, and I think one should learn to master them. In fact, as the CEO of Douchebags Inc. writes in his book Facing Your Own Damocles—

[1] Recites Wikipedia

Interesting! I wonder what kind of philosophy this author has and their outlook on life is. How could it be good to stare into the abyss? Won’t it drive you mad? This must be an interesting read.

> I’m probably not using “stare into the abyss” in the exact same sense Nietzche intended, since I wouldn’t really describe what I’m talking about as “fighting with a monster” or like it has the potential to turn you into a monster. […] as did Elon Musk when he said that

> […] Staring into the abyss means thinking reasonably about things that are uncomfortable to contemplate, like arguments against your religious beliefs, or in favor of breaking up with your partner.

> […] The first time I learned what really exceptional abyss-staring looks like, it was by watching Drew, the CEO of Wave. Starting a company requires a lot of staring into the abyss, because it involves making lots of serious mistakes (building the wrong thing, hiring the wrong person, etc.)

groans

> Your comment is confusing because emacs isn't a library for creating rich text mode applications

The point isn’t what it is. The point is presumably that it can do this task better than the terminal.

It seems like examples for these kinds of simpler grammars tend to be pretty dry. It would be fun to use more programming language-like examples. And then you might also see what difficulties you run into with them (with their limitations).

The last paragraph redeems it since it mentions the website.

> This is like saying that because it's impossible to write perfectly safe C++ programs, then we should just use raw pointers.

Anything goes does not imply a proscription like that.

> Bash is available everywhere

When you have AI but you don’t have permission to use a package manager.

The problem with this is that it’s hard to blog about it without making yourself a hypocrite.

You’re being absurd.

Why did you capitalize turkey?

As a low-level employee, my noise-cancelling headset helps me way more when it comes to concentration than any how-to book on “deep work” could.

The cool thing with all these links is that I can pick whichever one I want to talk about!

> Don't use assertions. BairsLaw applies - what will you do if the assertion fails? (Fix the bug, perhaps?) If you don't like the parameters you're given, throw an IllegalArgumentException. If you don't get a correct result, your UnitTest will tell you. There is no room left for assertions.

Disagree. How does the “law” apply? Yes, I would like to fix the bug if the assertion uncovers it… not unlike a validation error.

Assertions are only turned on in Java if `-ea`. Which means that you can fail fast for local development and maybe just log things in production.

And on today’s episode of connecting two different things which have no connection…

No one wants to tax wildlife reserves.

The type system isn’t impressive. You can find usages and thereby get navigation and refactoring via excellent Java-centric IDEs. But it seems like that’s it(?). On the other hand you have to constantly exercise your code because of lurking NPEs. Although hopefully we can get good annotations through third-party tooling (Facebook’s looks good).

Java can be hard to decipher in its own way. Mostly because of a culture of favoring just-in-case indirections, a propensity towards making deep call stacks as the codebase evolves (maybe because IDEs make that navigation tolerable, although it never makes it easy to see the whole context), and pretty imperative constructs outside of streams and lambdas.

But on the whole Java is not bad. I think it’s perfectly OK. I am more afraid of Java culture.

Imagine if someone protested against Finnish–Russian cooperation on search-and-rescue operations near their border because the evil Russian government could be searching for political dissidents to imprison. That’s what your comment sounds like.

This is about preventing things like API keys from being published to code. That’s not a dissident use-case…

I wasn’t commenting about whether it was novel or standard practice. OP seemed to have gotten the heebie-jeebies from the submission title.

Is this blog post not the transparency part?

I assume that the regex is `TC:[a-z0-9]{20}` or something uninteresting like that.

Why could the optics be improved?