mrexcess

I don’t think, “too much equality” was one of the themes. Rather, it was about too much centralized power over the individual. And yes I do think that’s somewhat relevant to understanding issues of today, including mass surveillance the centralization of technological control behind crypto-nationalized zaibatsus, etc.

Atlas Shrugged, more charitably perhaps despite its manifest flaws, seemed to me to be about the dangers of putting “the needs of the many” over individual rights, and how it can ultimately be self defeating for the whole.

Wasn’t 1984 a bit more about control through surveillance and silencing, than about pain? Everything was a lie, and every refusal to accept the lie was a signal to Big Brother.

Cast as such it seems rather more prophetic than Soma, IMO.

Hard times don’t create hard people, they create scarred people. I’ll take the robot farmers, undoing of wage slavery, and time to maintain participatory democracy over my favorite author’s romanticized suffering.

Rebinding C-b to C-a is a necessity for those of us whose muscle memory formed on GNU screen, been doing this for years. I like to set status-right to include host load average, with something akin to:

set -g status-right '#[fg=colour39, bg=colour234]#[fg=colour160] #h #[fg=colour088]avg: #(cat /proc/loadavg|cut -d" " -f1-3) '

Any tool that is that good at vulnerability research is bound to have some killer capabilities in attack surface mapping and exploitation…

Which is not to disagree with the thrust of your point, I think: it’s even more about the fundamentals than it was yesterday. The bar for “secure enough” is what is being raised.

>Like, does this guy think this single woman is responsible for the kafka-esque trap they're both in?

If there's any class of individual in whom I'm willing to place greater than average trust in their ability to read vocal tones, it's probably blind people. Just sayin'.

>NED is not a CIA front sweatie

Curious: can you show the research steps you took to reach this conclusion? Really curious how we can all easily determine which companies are and aren't CIA fronts!

>As the article states, this war was not unprovoked either

Using the same extraordinarily broad definition of "provocation" required here, can you name a single war in history that was unprovoked? And if not, haven't we just neutralized all meaning from the phrase "provoked war" with our overly broad definition of "provocation"?

After being restarted, the red (opposing) force general resigned due to the restarted game having what amounted to a scripted end, with little to no latitude for the red force to exercise creativity in strategy or tactics. Among the highlights, the red force were required to turn on and leave on their AA radars so that blue force HARMs could take them out, and the red force was prohibited from attempting to shoot down any of the 82nd airborne / marine air assault forces during the assault.

Gen. Van Riper's tactics were apparently discredited in 2002 because they were unfair, but Iran seems not to have received the memo since their moves bear more than a passing resemblance to his.

>Vulnerabilities have nothing to do with country of manufacture.

That depends on how you define "Vulnerability", doesn't it?

For instance, from some standpoints, the absence rather than presence of a backdoor in consumer routers could be considered a "vulnerability", no?

You're making great software and I'm sorry this happened to you. Don't get discouraged, keep bringing the open source disruption!

>Idk, while system architecture diagrams look cool and feel informative, I generally don't feel like they actually help you get started working somewhere on a project.

Can't speak to that, but they're enormously helpful in reviewing the security architecture of a design, especially when you're doing this at scale and might only get a few hours to look into a given project.

Given the Greenland stuff, isn't it within EU and UK's interests to keep the US occupied in Iran?

Disagree only in the sense that I think the drama escalated a bit in the interregnum, as the BBS scene merged into one large if fragmentary collective on the internet. Empirical evidence for that extreme level of drama and complexity here:

https://www.wired.com/2001/12/sexchart-degrees-of-separation

GETOLD /index.html "2026-03-11T10:30:45Z" would be such cool functionality...

So your analysis is that the US hit a few meters away with a missile, then another missile hit a few meters the other direction within minutes, but we can't know who did that?

So your claim is that no missile hit the school at all…?

>Absolute numbers such as 92k do not give full picture

A full picture of what? The metric gives us a full picture on how many jobs were added or lost in the month of February.

Thanks for taking the time to share your views! I don't know that we'll be able to reach much more consensus, but I appreciate hearing your perspective. Cheers!

Telegraph is paywalled, got a source I can read without forking out?

Beyond that, what you're presenting appears to be much more generalized than the original claim that I asked for examples of. For example, the Reuters story is about a BBC editor resigning over an edit to a Trump documentary - not relevant at all to what we're discussing!

I'm specifically looking for cases of BBC reporting disinformational Hamas statements as fact, in a fashion that did or was likely to have critically misled the British public. That's what was supposed to have been happening, so I'd like to review the examples myself.

It's apples and oranges to compare an externally-imposed nickname like "The Great Satan" with an ethnic designation that was the group's primary identity within the lifetimes of still-living people. There were no Israelis during the colonization of Palestine, recall. There were "the Jews", however, which is when the term entered the region's popular lexicon.

FWIW though, if there was some other group called "The Great Satan" that wasn't the US, and you were a journalist reporting on what someone had said about the US while terming then "The Great Satan", yes, you would still want to clarify that, I think?

>Arabic speakers have plenty of options for referring to Israeli forces other than "Yahud".

Don't Israelis also refer to themselves as "the Jews", though? As in, "eternal homeland of The Jews", "Netanyahu is the leader of the Jewish people", etc.? And wasn't that what most Palestinians, including Jewish ones, called the Jewish colonial population of Palestine prior to Israel's formation in 1948?

>it's not the role of a translator to come up with a fundamentally different statement that they might have meant to say.

But it isn't fundamentally different, when understood in the likely intended context. Jihad just means "fighting for a noble cause", and "the Jews" to anyone in the region clearly refers to Israelis, so there's no change in meaning, just the opposite - the chance of a drastic misunderstanding is reduced by the translation.

Anecdotally, in the trenches, I'm seeing a proliferation of Casio F-91w and AE-1200s. Maybe a counter response, lol.

>I'm not saying it was entirely intentional or there was an agenda, it's just unprofessionalism over and over and over again.

A few things here:

1) I'm not seeing the "over and over again" part at all, can you help me there?

2) The more scrutiny we give to this claim, the more the strength of it seems to fade. We went from BBC critically misinforming the British public by uncritically reporting Hamas statements, to the BBC misattributing an attack in a war full of misattributed attacks on both sides, which was corrected within hours.

3) Do you think there are similar examples of BBC reporting or publication that could be used to make the opposite case - that BBC holds a pro-Israel bias?

>"jihad against the Jews" with "fighting and resisting Israeli forces"

But isn't this a fair editorial change? "Jihad" just means "fighting for a noble cause", and most Palestinians don't like to refer to the proper name "Israel" since they feel it validates the existence of that country. Thus, they tend to refer to "Israelis" by the ethnic designation that they came to be known as during the colonial era - "the Jews".

If the editor hadn't made that correction, Jewish people living in London or New York City might believe that Palestinian resistance groups intend to fight them, while the correction makes the true context much more clear?

>They published straight up misinformation as fact first

Can you add some specifics to this claim? I'm unaware of the BBC having reported "Hamas-sourced" substantial misinformation as fact. I'm sure some errors and retractions have been done - especially given that BBC like all Western media continues to be forbidden to operate freely in Gaza.

>I refuse to because they have very consistently relayed communication from Hamas as news without attributing the source is Hamas.

I'm a US-ian and have no particular dog in this hunt, but could you relate any instances where this led to the British public being significantly misinformed about a major event?

Everything I've seen, including recent statements from the Israeli government, indicate that the Gaza Health Ministry (often referred to by Israel-sympathetic press as part of Hamas, rather than part of the government of Gaza which Hamas currently dominates) death toll statistics from the Gaza war were largely accurate.

Is there a case of BBC reporting "Hamas-sourced" information in a way that was notably harmful to the British public's truthful understanding of the conflict?

These statistics would be a lot better if they were compared directly to the same measurements taken from dedicated cloud SWGs/SSEs like Zscaler. My somewhat subjective sense is that the whole industry is in a bit of a rough patch, the miss rate seems to be noticeably climbing all across the board.

>We're talking about an app that's controlled by the CCP, I do expect them to take a principled stance

In the area of large scale internet service providers, who do you expect to take a principled stance, and why do you expect them to take it?

If the answer is, "nobody", then why keep singling out China? And if the answer isn't "nobody", then how do we apply the same pressures and principles to TikTok and other platforms that offer messaging?

This isn't some abstract concern. We know that WESTERN journalists, activists, and others have been murdered in acts of transnational repression that either began or were focused and abetted by communications surveillance aimed toward political dissidence. It seems incredibly naive to believe that current Western political and military leadership could ever be dissuaded from taking effective action (and such surveillance and repression campaigns certainly are effective) by moral qualms unsupported by strong checks and balances of accountability. In other words - this sort of repression most likely continues happening to journalists, activists, human rights lawyers, and other political dissidents, in our society, today. Enabled by the refusal of our service providers to protect us, their users.

It seems incredibly naive - civilization threateningly so - to write a pass to anyone, let alone Larry Ellison, for opting to deliberately expose "his" users to this risk. Nothing is OK about this dereliction of responsibility towards them.

>I think it's fine to say "You don't really have privacy on this app"

Disagree. To analogize why: privacy isn't heated seats, *its seat belts*. Comfort features and preferences are fine to tailor to your customers and your business model. Jaguar targets a different market than Ford, and that's just fine.

Safety features should be non-negotiable for all. Both Jaguar and Ford drivers merit the utmost protection against injury in crashes. Likewise, all applications that offer user messaging functionality should offer non-defective, non-harmful versions of it. To do that, e2e privacy is absolutely necessary.

>I just don't see the point in expecting some sort of principled stance out of them.

This is the defeatism that adds momentum to a downhill trajectory. Exactly the opposite approach arrests the slide - users expecting their applications and providers to behave in principled ways, and punishing those who do not, are what keeps principles alive. Failing to expect lawful and upright behavior out of those you depend on, be they political leaders or software solutions providers, guarantees that tomorrow's behavior will be less lawful and upright than yesterday's. Stop writing these people a pass for this horrible behavior, and start holding them unreasonably accountable for it, then we'll see behavior start to change in the direction that we mostly all agree that it needs to.

The most effective protests against internet censorship came from massive grass roots movements, with users drawing a line in the sand that they will not tolerate further impositions on their freedom.

>In some ways I think it's worse for places like Facebook to "care about privacy" and use E2EE but then massively under-resource policing of CSAM on their platform.

The irony is so manifest of billions of people having their privacy stripped by politicians and business elites in the name of protecting our children, while those politicians and business elites conspire en masse to prey on and sex traffick our children. If these forces actually took those concerns seriously, rather than sensing them as an opportunity to push ulterior motives, they'd be eating each other alive, right now. Half of DC, half of Hollywood, and at least a tenth of most major college administrations would ALL be at the docket.