1,275 karma · joined February 7, 2023
That said, collecting plants or beetles is probably equally beneficial. Geocaching comes to mind too.
Although, I wonder if looking up may contribute, given old people tend deform and bend forward with age. Could affect blood or lymphatic circulation.
Ignoring OP's config fuck-up, I think you did a service to the world, showing this vulnerability is very much real.
> in the binary itself does it perchance end in "fuL"?
Username and that comment earlier matches the "a few hours ago"/"confusion" statement by LiveOverflow.
Was it actually php2shell, and/or some other exploit?
Going by the fact the setup was rather hostile to exploitation, for the longest time not even exploitable, and under heavy load, I think we can conclude the threat is very real. Again, assuming it's not funny games.
Edit: LiveOverflow got more info, apparently it was hacked hours ago by @killa lol: https://x.com/LiveOverflow/status/2114488571021398330
Lol, what does that even mean?
jAwECQEKMLU49MiDV9LSmgFyUbVA3GI6fCx5U2M+0vra/s81r2NWmfqtJTHM0Yn/J8jkzhq1rlXL5/DvyPNPXr0TJp1HeyLaYLvuGrQb/cDMGDeIOebk8yD48YKxUUTVJJFV0I3mzET1pngQEme9r2HrXrOgWVTASCQU/kEYbRfw9ogbCguFCu4qfVZq3JpzNDF52YS1kwtvKVA/wkb+sN5L5fgqEvsZqc8=
You are not really thinking this through. How would a fitness reducing mutation become a feature of a genetic line in the first place in asexual reproduction? The "silent" partial carrier dynamic of genetic defects is a problem exclusive to sexually reproducing organisms.
How can sexual reproduction "get rid of them"?
Play it out for a few generations, you will see, there is a frequency equilibrium. We've done this in school with paper, but if you know some programming, it's an easy exercise. Anyway, unless being very detrimental for partial carriers, the bad allele is gonna stay in the gene pool.
Apart from that, it's also wrong because sexual reproduction did not get rid of anything. Just one offspring not affected, but the premise already established the fitness of partial carriers, so that mutation is gonna remain in the gene pool.
Last time I checked, Big Biology was kinda unique going beyond basic popsci, while still remaining interesting and engaging. I think biologists are not the most technically inclined, not really drawn to podcasting. And it's also not the hottest of topics right now, specific research PR and educational voices aren't funded well. There are some journal/university etc. associated everybody-has-a-podcast-now podcasts, but I found them to be rather boring and dry. Individual episodes of the Huberman/Lex Fridman type edgelord podcasts may also be occasionally interesting, but the signal to noise ratio is poor, with a heavy bias towards overconfident and narcissistic guests speaking with false authority, lots of explanatory speculation presented as facts, pronounced political confirmation bias.
Maybe take a well presented episode on Big Biology and see where else respective guests speak or publish?
I am not a biologist, so I can not refer to or evaluate any meaningful recent papers on the matter. However, I can recommend the podcast 'Big Biology', which dives into current biology research, theory and philosophy, including sexual evolution.
You may start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproducti...
Richard Dawkins' 'The Selfish Gene' is also an excellent read/audiobook. His specific theories of the evolutionary "unit" have been disproven, but his argumentation teaches a lot about "evolutionary thinking". I really wish he stuck with biology and science education instead of becoming this reactionary giga twat.