jasondj @ jasondj @ttrpg.network

Posts

0

Comments

673

Joined

2 yr. ago

Is it honestly that surprising? Just because they are sexually attracted to kids does not mean they cannot love kids on an emotional level. I don’t think it’s impossible that there would be pedophiles who both love children and recognize that sexual and intimate contact is reprehensible.

Put differently, I would much rather hear “child psychiatrist caught with computer-generated CSAM modeled after his patients” than “child psychiatrist caught with nude photos of his patients” or “child psychiatrist charged with sexual assault of a minor”. Comparatively speaking, the first is really just computer-assisted thoughtcrime, while the others mean there was actual direct harm to a child.

Although in this particular instance, child psychiatrist is a bit too close to the child, in my opinion.

Ngl I would love to have at least one social media experience where everyone has to use their real, validated identity.

Probably not financially viable, because ironically, privacy would be chiefly important. It’d have to be a paid service, not use ads or sell data at all, posts and profile visible to nobody by default, connections made by direct in-person/text/email invitation or by mutual introduction…very different from most modern social media. It’d also have to have pretty insane security, and mandatory MFA for every user at least on every session, if not on every page transaction.

Could be technologically viable if we had digital government ID’s like drivers licenses printed on smartcards. But we can’t even get the states to agree on implementing common requirements for official state IDs.

I’d really love to see how it’d play out, in the real world, if it could reach enough of a mass of users to be financially self-sustaining, and what the environment would be like at that point. For the sake of science.

No. Carbon neutral isn’t enough. We are going to have to go carbon negative.

We can’t just take hundreds of millions of years worth of sequestered carbon and dump it into the atmosphere and leave it there to re-sequester itself. That’s going to take a long time to reverse enough to even buck the current trend of global warming, if we were able to just go carbon neutral today.

Trees also don’t really sequester carbon for long. They die, and the carbon gets eaten by organisms and the cycle continues. Or it burns and most of the carbon is released instantly and only ash remain.

Coal only got there specifically because there was nothing evolved to eat lignin for a long time and dead trees piled up so high that dead trees on top ended up compressing their ancestors into it.

Crude only got there because plants and algae in shallow water died, mixed into sediment, rinse, repeat times a few million years, get compressed by the weight of all the layers above, and turn to crude.

The sequestration of ancient carbon wasn’t just by virtue of being plants, but what happened after those plants died.

Is this the real life? Aside from being almost all tech stocks you’d think Nancy Pelosi had the same investor as my grandfather which was basically “stock a bunch of money on the fastest growing sector” (which at the time was oil and utilities).

I did find her <$100 trade for Roblox kind of funny for some reason though.

Honestly I recently switched to vyvanse and I don’t actually smoke to get high (at least not until the kids are in bed). I just microdose a bit throughout the day and it balances out the vyvanse. Like, the stimulants alone are just a little bit too much for me. The combo, though, I can dial in just right.

But weed alone always made me fixate on arithmetics. And then stims turn that up to 11.

You are missing half the purpose of PKI. Identity is equally, if not more, as important as encryption.

Who gives a shit if your password is encrypted if somebody intercepts DNS and sends yourbank.com and makes it go to their own server that’s hosting a carbon-copy of the homepage to collect passwords?

And DNS isn’t the only attack vector for this. It can be done at the IP level by attacks that spoof BGP. It can be done by sticking a single-board computer in a trashcan at a subway stop. Have it broadcast a ton of well-known SSIDs and a ton of phones in the area will auto connect to it and can intercept traffic. Hell, if not for trusted CAs, it’d be very easy to just MITM all the HTTPS traffic anyway.

In reality, you would tofu the first website you went to and not know if it got intercepted or if they just rotated keys (which is also a common security practice and is handled by renewing certificates and part of the reason why publicly-issued CAs are trending down the life of certificates and it’s not a big deal for admins because of easy automation technology. HSTS and cert pinning is more of a PITA but really barely any effort when you consider the benefits of those).

Now, what certificates don’t protect, nor claim to protect, is typosquatting. If you instead go to yorbank.com, that’s on you, and protecting you from a malicious site that happened to buy it is the job for host-based security, web filters, and NGFWs.

But you only really need one to say it’s authentic. There are levels of validation that require different levels of effort. Domain Validation (DV) is the most simple and requires that you prove you own the domain, which means making a special domain record for them to validate (usually a long string that they provide over their HTTPS site), or by sending an email to the registered domain owner from their WHOIS record. Organization Validation (OV) and extended verification (EV) are the higher tiers, and usually require proof of business ownership and an in-person interview, respectively.

Now, if you want to know if the site was compromised or malicious, that’s a different problem entirely. Certificates do not and cannot serve that function, and it’s wrong to place that role on CAs. That is a security and threat mitigation problem and is better solved by client-based applications, web filtering services, and next-gen firewalls, that use their own reputation databases for that.

A CA is not expected to prevent me from hosting rootkits. Doesn’t matter if my domain is rootkits-are.us or totallylegitandsafe.net. It’s their job to make sure I own those domains. Nothing more. For a DV cert at least.

Public key cryptography, and certificates in particular, are an amazing system. They don’t need to be scrapped because there’s a ton of misunderstanding as to its role and responsibilities.

Yeah, except you aren’t supposed to TOFU.

Literally everybody does SSH wrong. The point of host keys is to exchange them out-of-band so you know you have the right host on the first connection.

And guess what certificates are.

Also keep in mind that although MS and Apple both publish trusted root lists, Mozilla is also one of, if not the, biggest player. They maintain the list of what ultimately gets distributed as ca-certificates in pretty much every Linux distro. It’s also the source of the Python certifi trusted root bundle, that required by requests, and probably makes its way into every API script/bot/tool using Python (which is probably most of them).

And there’s literally nothing stopping you from curating your own bundle or asking people to install your cert. And that takes care of the issue of TOFU. The idea being that somebody that accepts your certificate trusts you to verify that any entity using a certificate you attach your name to was properly vetted by you or your agents.

You are also welcome to submit your CA to Mozilla for consideration on including it on their master list. They are very transparent about the process.

Hell, there’s also nothing stopping you from rolling a CA and using certificates for host and client verification on SSH. Thats actually preferable at-scale.

A lot of major companies also use their own internal CA and bundle their own trusted root into their app or hardware (Sony does this with PlayStation, Amazon does this a lot of AWS Apps like workspaces, etc)

In fact, what you are essentially suggesting is functionally the exact same thibg as self-signed certificates. And there’s absolutely (technically) nothing wrong with them. They are perfectly fine, and probably preferable for certain applications (like machine-to-machine communication or a closed environment) because they expire much longer than the 1yr max you can get from most public CAs. But you still aren’t supposed to TOFU them. That smacks right in the face of a zero-trust philosophy.

The whole point of certificates is to make up for the issue of TOFU by you instead agreeing that you trust whoever maintains your root store, which is ultimately going to be either your OS or App developer. If you trust them to maintain your OS or essential app, then you should also trust them to maintain a list of companies they trust to properly vet their clientele.

And that whole process is probably the number one most perfect example of properly working, applied, capitalism. The top-level CAs are literally selling honesty. Fucking that up has huge business ramifications.

Not to mention, if you don’t trust Bob’s House of Certificate's, there’s no reason you can’t entrust it from your system. And if you trust Jimbo’s Certificate Authority, you are welcome to tell your system to accept certificates they issue.

At least they got that far.

There’s a good reason as a web server to block anonymizing VPNs. Turns out the bad guys use them too. Who knew.

They got the idea from Svalbard. In case of global catastrophe.

Oh, yes, little B😉bby ┬──┬s, we call him.

Idk man. I used to think that my kids are badly behaved and I would’ve never gotten away with that when I was a kid…but the reality is I was just as much of a little shit, the only difference now is we all finally decided that hitting kids is bad. Repressed trauma’s a hell of a drug.

Idk if it’s the weed, the adderall, or the ADHD, but this thread is everything I need in my life.

They taught you all the parts. Where they (and I’d agree most math education) failed was to connect the dots.

They taught you about these properties.

They taught you that division is just fractions and vice versa.

They taught you that x/1=x.

They taught you multiplying fractions as (numerator_a • numerator_b) / (denominator_a • denominator_b).

They taught you percentages are just “per centum”, or per hundred, or basically just a fraction “over 100”.

But these tricks, much like many other mental math shortcuts that are useful for everyday life, got glossed over or missed entirely.

9% of 3 is easier to estimate because you know it’s “almost 10% of 3”. Or, since 10-1==9, you could think of it as (10% of 3)-(1% of 3) and get the right answer using some other shortcuts. Humans being generally pretty good at base10, this is easy to figure out in your head as (0.3 - 0.03) and get 0.27.

Or, you could do what another commenter suggested and “3% of 9” can broken down as (3/100)•(9/1), becomes, (3•9) / (100•1), becomes 27/100, becomes 0.27. And that can be simplified as xy/100.

Different tools for different jobs. Base10 tricks are good for stuff like figuring out, say, a 15% or 20% tip, because you can easily figure out a 10% tip just by moving the decimal one space to the left, and add half of that (for 15) or double it (for 20). Or half and half again for (almost) 18%. xy/100 is a good trick for figuring out small percentages like sales tax (unless you’re in a place like Mass where it’s 6.25 and you gotta change it now to 625y/10000. At that point I’d just estimate at 6 in my head, or if I had to solve it mentally do (6y100) + ((1y100)/4).

Their citation for that is their own article, which doesn’t mention anything about selling data from phones, but does talk about cars generating upwards of 25GB per hour of raw telemetry data. Again, mostly uncited.

The point of that line is to drive intra-site clicks and mislead you into getting more upset and drive the ever important “engagement”. Unfortunately a common theme in modern media.

But tons of stuff would have to get sync’s every time you connect your phone. Better to have them cached, encrypted at rest, decrypted by key stored in the phone, and just do a diff-sync.

This should be very easily possible with CarPlay and Android Auto. I have no idea if it does or not. But as Apple and Android both control both their respective app and the OS of the attached phone, there’s no reason it can’t (and even pre-compile diff packages for known cars, or expire and purge both sides after X days without a connection)

That may not be true for regular old Bluetooth though…which likely has more to gain in performance from caching the resources due to BTs limited throughput, but also has to conform to standards.

How close is this stuff to HP’s Cyan?

Seriously, these cases seem like giant nothingburgers.

Did you expect that your car wouldn’t have your text message when it’s displaying it on the screen or reading it out loud?

Now, is there malicious intent? Can they be retrieved by technicians at the dealership if your phone isn’t plugged in? Is it forwarding them back to Honda Corporate or Zuck himself? If so, that’s a significant problem that would probably belong to Android Auto and Apple CarPlay…they should be storing them encrypted and only be able to decrypt them when the phone is connected. But I don’t see any mention of that in the article.

That’s what they said. “After more details emerged”.

As in the initial story came out, RPHC just said “now hold on there, this may not be that bad. Let’s just see how it plays out”.