Hobo @ Hobo @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

306

Joined

2 yr. ago

I think their really, and I cannot stress this enough, paper thin argument was that Palestinian isn't a race per se. They also are ignoring the very clear intention that is discrimination based on nationality which is illegal in most cases in the US (see customs and border patrol for exceptions that shouldn't be granted but are in fact institutionally legal).

Again their point is fairly pointless, useless even, and they could've said it without coming off like an asshole trying to nettle at a topic they don't understand. But I do think that was the point to their poorly constructed question.

For reference what is happening is federally illegal and specifically goes against the protections against national origins (see the section on public accommodations): https://www.justice.gov/crt/federal-protections-against-national-origin-discrimination-1

I always preferred the Mark Twain quote, "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." Because I've been beaten bloody with that experience on more than one occasion.

You're using the triune model to draw some rather lofty conclusions that aren't really up to date with our understanding of neurology. It's way over simplified and doesn't really work that way. More recent studies suggest that the neocortex was already present in even the earliest mammals, so it's not quite as straightforward and the demarcation isn't quite as clear cut, as you seem to be presenting it. "Old brain" doesn't "take over" in the way you're presenting it either but appears to act as a primary driver for those basic functions.

Not sure how to even tackle the loftly conclusions you've made because the don't seem to be built on a solid foundation. I think things might be quite a bit more interesting, and wildly more complex, then you seem to be presenting it. I'll just leave some sources below with a quick note. Not trying to be condescending, or rude, just a topic that is a bit interesting, and a lot of people tend to draw some lofty conclusions from the triune model which has largely fallen by the wayside in neurology.

Read the wiki to see how the model was developed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triune_brain

A quick introduction to why it was important but has shown to be overly simplified and mostly incorrect: https://medicine.yale.edu/news/yale-medicine-magazine/article/a-theory-abandoned-but-still-compelling/

Further details into how we don't have a "lizard brain": https://thebrainscientist.com/2018/04/11/you-dont-have-a-lizard-brain/

Deacon's paper on rethinking the mammalian brain: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/31439318_Rethinking_Mammalian_Brain_Evolution

Here now you can pretend to be born in the mid to late 80s instead:

https://youtu.be/wvAnQqVJ3XQ?si=j2IDH3d8ntQ22u8P

It's escapism I think. At least that's part of it. Having a machine that won't judge you, will serve as a perfect echo chamber, and will immediately tell you AN answer can be very appealing to some. I don't have any data, or any study to back it up, just my experience from seeing it happen.

I have a friend who I feel like I kind of lost to chatgpt. I think he's a bit unhappy with where he is in life. He got the good paying job, the house in the suburbs, wife, and 2.5 kids, but didn't ever think about what was next. Now he's just a bit lost I think, and somehow convinced himself that people weren't as good as chatting with a bot.

It's weird now. He spends long nights and weekends talking to a machine. He's constructed elaborate fictional worlds within his chatgpt history. I've grown increasingly concerned about him, and his wife clearly is struggling with it. He's obviously depressed but instead of seeking help or attempting to figure himself out, he turned to a non-feeling, non-judgmental, emotionless tool for answers.

It's a struggle to talk to him now. It's like talking to a cryptobro at peak btc mania. The only thing that he wants to talk about is LLMs. Trying to bring up that maybe spending all your time talking to a machine is a bit unhealthy invokes his ire and he'll avoid you for several days. Like a herion addict struggling with addiction, even pointing out the obvious flaws in what he's doing makes him distance himself more from you.

I'm not young, not old exactly either, but I've known him for 25 years in my adult life. We met in college and have been friends ever since. I know many won't quite understand but knowing someone that long, and remaining close, talk every few days, friends is quite rare. At this point he is my longest held friendship and I feel like I'm losing him to a robot. I've lost other friends to addiction in my life and to say that it's been similar is under stating it. I don't know what to do for him. I don't know if there's really anything I CAN do for him. How do you help someone that doesn't even think they have a problem?

I guess my point is, if you find someone who is just depressed enough, just stuck enough, with a particular proclivity towards computers/the internet then you have a perfect canidate for falling down the LLM rabbit hole. It offers them an out to feeling like they're being judged. They feel like the insanity it spits out is more sane than how they feel now. They think they're getting somewhere, or at least escaping their current situation. Escapism is very appealing when everything else seems pointless and sort of gray I think. So that's at least one type of person that can fall down the chapgpt/LLM rabbit hole. I'm sure there's others out there too with there own unique motivations and reason's for latching onto LLMs.

Damn I've just been waiting for it to rain and standing outside with my mouth open. This container thing is a game changer!

To where? Like where you gonna go that is more suitable than where we already are? You gonna rocketship your ass to Mars? Cause even with global warming earth is still more hospitable than a rocky desert with no oxygen. A bigass bank account with lots of zeros isn't gonna keep anyone out of the we're collectively fucked line. Sure it might get you a spot at the back of the line, but we're all getting in it together no matter who you are.

Where specifically does your philosophy diverge from liberalism. What parts of it seem conformist and what made you feel that way? In my understanding libertarian-socialist, with a lean to anarchist, seems to be liberalism without the label. So just trying to figure out the specifics of your personal philosophy.

Do you believe in private property? Regulation of commerce? Do you think social safety nets should be maintained by the government? Emergency/public services like fire departments, school, and utilities? Taking a step back, do you think the government should collect taxes? Again, just curious where your personal philosophy diverges and why. Not trying to put you on the defense or anything, just genuinely curious.

That's the joke isn't it? Just for historical context Michaelangelo completed the Last Judgement on the Sistine chapel in 1541, so like 5 years before 1546, and I don't think he had flashlights to help him with the lighting.

Please don't take this the wrong way. I'm assuming you're saying you're philosophically libertarian, and not Libertarian as in a particular party, because you didn't capitalize the word but could be mistaken...

So you're a liberal that doesn't like to label themselves that way? Why throw your hat into a ring with all the rest of that batshit crazy shit if you believe in a strong centralized government and regulation (ie support for a strong FDA, EPA, and CPS)? The things you appear to support are philosophically liberal ideals. What things make you want to label yourself libertarian that conflict with a liberal philosophy?

Again, genuinely curious because libertarians tend to be either liberals that don't like that label, or batshit crazy racists that want the end of times so they can shoot minorities. And I'm just endlessly fascinated by both types of people. Also I'm always on the look out for the elusive 3rd type of libertarian.

The average light bulbs in 1546 definitely did jack shit that's for sure.

Anecdotally my grandmother had bad arthritis and cooked every day. She had my grandfather do the prep work. It wasn't that it was impossible for her to do it, she did still prep/chop stuff after my grandfather passed, just that it would start getting unbearably painful after a while. She very often had one us cut up and/or prep stuff for the week when we were over. So buying prechopped stuff would probably be a lifesaver to a little old lady eith arthritis who didn't get weekly visits from her grandkids.

A lot of disabilities are sort of hidden like that though. Like yes this person could theoretically power through walking through the store, or prepping a meal, but the pain build up and becomes agony after a while.

Sort of an afterthought but I could also see it being very helpful to amputees. I can for sure cook one handed (I've one-hand cooked while holding a baby at least a few times in my life), but I'll be damned if I could chop/prep one handed.

Yes but MTV was never obligated to play Eminem's videos and quite often censred them. Hell Walmart is responsible for at least two decades of CD censorship. Is Spotify obligated to host offensive songs/images? I don't think there's a great answer to that question, but it bugs the crap out of me trying to figure it out. The only thing that I've seen that sort of hoodwinks the issue is the fediverse, and I don't think there's a federated music platform.

They are sort of right but have implemented it terribly. Serving out a static webpage is pretty low on the "things that are exploitable" but it's still an entry point into the network (unless this is all internal then this gets a bit silly). What you need to do is get IT to set up a proxy and run apt/certbot through that proxy. It defends against some basic reverse shell techniques and gives you better control over the webhosts traffic. Even better would be to put a WAP and a basic load balancer in front of the webhost, AND proxy external communications.

Blocking updates/security services is dogshit though and usually is done by people that are a bit slow on the uptake. Basically they have completely missed the point of blocking external comms and created a way more massive risk in the process... They either need to politely corrected or shamed mercilessly if that doesn't work.

Good luck though! I'm just glad I'm not the one that has to deal with it.

I'm absolutely shocked that a company had a software whitelist before the widespread adoption of the internet. Ahead of their time in implementing, and fucking up, software whitelisting!

Yep you're right, but at least that adds another layer of complexity to their attack. A lot of security controls are at least somewhat situational, and most non-draconian companies have a process to put further mitigations around those exceptions either from increased monitoring or adding additional supplemental controls.

There's no such thing at perfect security, just better risk mitigation. Slipping in a usb hub between the computer and keyboard while someone isn't looking is a bit trickier then just plugging in a usb stick. If you disable unused usbs in the bios, instead of trying to do silly stuff like glue them shut, then the attacker has at least been temporarily thwarted if they slot it into a dead port. Aside from the high traffic areas, disabling ALL usb ports in places like datacenters and especially colocated datacenters, can thwart the attack outright as well.

Really from looking through this thread a lot of people seem to be under the misconception that security that isn't perfect is pointless. It's like claiming that locking your doors is pointless because lockpicks exists. The point isn't to keep a sophisticated attack at bay, but rather to keep script kiddies and drive-by attacks from hitting your network. To defend against sophisticated attacks you really have to go a bit crazy, and even then very small slip ups can be disastrous. Ask Microsoft about their root cert getting leaked via a core dump!

I fully acknowledge that many people also work for places with dumbass security controls. Gluing usbs is WAYYYY up there on that list in my opinion. It also looks like a lot of people work at places that have really shitty security teams that haven't quite figured out that controls are situational and require more thought then, "see checkbox, execute checkbox."

That's obvious when a mouse or keyboard doesn't work. OP, and clealy other people in here, don't really understand the actual attack vector in play. They aren't using the USB as data storage, they are using as a cellular connected RAT and/or a tool to deploy a RAT to a workstation.

I think gluing usbs is dumb in just about any environment (disable them on the BIOS is the right answer), but attackers aren't using it to drag and drop files and then physically take the usb with them. They are plugging them into a workstation, or just leaving them in the parking lot and letting other people plug them in, leveraging them to get initial access, and then essentially abandoning them.

For example see stuxnet: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

Also, again, there are absolutely editors who will just wordlessly revert objective, factual edits, with clear, proper citations from accepted primary sources...

That might be the misunderstanding. Primary sources are not directly allowed on wikipedia without very careful consideration that no analysis was done. Wikipedia article are, and should be, mostly derived from secondary sources to avoid bias. The Wikipedia page does a pretty good job of describing the guideline:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

I made one comment to you clarifying the other person's point because you clearly didn't understand what they were saying. Personally seen a couple of small companies fold because they were ransomed from a password on a post it. But you do you.

The guideline is abundantly clear too with little room for interpretation:

5.1.1.1 Memorized Secret Authenticators

Verifiers SHOULD NOT impose other composition rules (e.g., requiring mixtures of different character types or prohibiting consecutively repeated characters) for memorized secrets. Verifiers SHOULD NOT require memorized secrets to be changed arbitrarily (e.g., periodically). However, verifiers SHALL force a change if there is evidence of compromise of the authenticator.

https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-3/sp800-63b.html