unfuckingbelievable
if you want that without the “un” prefix, then youtube is maybe just the wrong platform for you.
and i strongly believe that youtube “wants” to force more usage of peertube, vimeo and others by enshitting yt every day a bit more. and they really work hard for that.
yes 💪
or maybe thats the hiring strategy to get more woman into tech jobs 😂 … and we have reserved private toilets !! …
we are a tech company. we had several floors in two near but separate buildings. we had as many toilets for woman as we had for men. basically each floor had one for woman and one for men which had a pissoir too. as we had > 90% men, mens toilets always had a waiting line after lunch time (not for the pissoir, however). on one floor the only woman was a trainee who (normal here) often had to go to school for 3weeks in a row, that was when men just used womens toilet as there was no woman to use it on the floor and the other woman on the other floor of that building literally had her very own toilet to share with no one. (rest of all the woman happened to work in the other building)
then the company started to build its own building to leave the rental situation and at the same time to better longterm meet some necessarities that come along with the market niche that the company serves. (there are some laws regulating some physical aspects of the building for our services.)
one if the promises was, that the “toilet situation” would be improved with the new building.
the new building then had larger toilets on each floor. the space was then used to still have one toilet for men, but now there were two pissoirs! and two large sinks just for washing hands. yay! womens bathroom now have 3 toilets on each floor each and also the large sinks too. same amount of toilets for 90% of empleyee, the 10% have now triple number toilets they had before and double the space for washing, using mirror etc.
The woman basically gets her own.
exactly, and when men don’t have enough toilets, women actually gets build more of them to “statistically” solve the problem !! 🤣
is normal for kidneys…
its quite normal to read such stuff in propaganda times, without them needing to happen at all. and it has always been like this.
i once had to look at a firefall appliance cluster, (discovered, it could not do any failover in its current state but somehow the decider was ok with that) but when looking at its logs, i discovered an rsh and rcp access from an ip address that belonged to a military organisation from a different continent. i had to make it a security incident. later the vendor said that this was only the cluster internal routing (over the dedicated crosslink), used for synchronisation (the thing that did not work) and was only used by a separate routing table only for clustersync and that could never be used for real traffic. but why not simply use an ip that you “own” by yourself and PTR it with a hint about what this ip is used for? instead of customers scratching their head why military still uses rcp and rsh. i guess because no company reads firewall logs anyway XD
someone elses ip? yes! becuase they’ll never find out !!1!
i really appreciate that ipv6 has things like a dedicated documentation address range and that fc00:/7 is nicely short.
ipv6 in companies… ipv6 is not hard, but for internal networking no company (really) “needs” more than rfc1918 address space. thus any decision in that direction is always “less” needed than any bonus for (da)magement personnel is crucial for the whole companies survival…
for companies services to be reachable from outside/ipv6 mostly “only” the loadbalancers/revproxies etc need to be ipv6 ready but … this i.e. also produces logs that possibly break decades old regexes that no one understands any more (as the good engineers left due to too many boni payed to damagement personnel) while other access/deny rules that could break or worse let through where they should block (remember that 192.168. could the local part of ipv6 IF sone genious used a matching mech that treats the dot “.” as a wildcard as overpayed damagement personnel made them rush too fast), could be hidden “somewhere”. altogether technical debt is a huge blocker for everything, especially company growth, and if no customer “demands” ipv6, then it stays on the damagement personnels list as “fulfilling the whishes of engineers to keep them happy” instead of on the always deleted “cleaning up technical debt caused by damagement personnel” list.
setting up firewalls for ipv6 is quite easy and if you go the finegrained “whitelisted or drop/block” approach from the beginning it might take a bit for ipv6 specials to be known to you, but the much bigger thing is IMHO the then current state of firewall rules. and who knows every existing rule? what rules should be removed already and must not be ported to ipv6? usually firewalls and their rules are a big mess due to … again too many boni payed to damagement personnel, hindering the company from the needed steps forward…
ipv6 adoption is slow for reasons that are driving huge cars that in turn speed up other problems ;-|
maybe start with an adjustable setup:
(if you want, ask for config snippets)
btw i prefer to wait for ipv8😁 before “demanding” ipv6 from services i use 🤣
lets see on wikipedia, what a conspiracy is:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy
A conspiracy, also known as a plot, is a secret plan or agreement between people (called conspirers or conspirators) for an unlawful or harmful purpose, such as murder, treason, or corruption, especially with a political motivation,[1] while keeping their agreement secret from the public or from other people affected by it.
so there seem to be some mayor points:
purpose: unlawful or harmful? i suggested a purpose, thats right. wether a billionaire NOT dying actually is harmful is worth a separate discussion, but having a plan to not die in a submarine “accident” by itself would usually rather be considered a rescue, not causing harm. did physical harm to persons happen in the story that i suggested? nope, the opposite would be true. but would it have been unlawful? on open seas leaving a vessel that is about to sink usually also is not considered an unlawful action. also to consider something to be unlawful, at least some law about the happening would need to have been in effect. this could maybe be answered with the question under which countries flag the submarine was registered with. For most or all ship accidents one can hear in the news like ‘a ship under panama flag’ (or literally any other country) which i did not hear a single time for the sub. also the sub was not even “transported” by the supporting vessel to the site but towed, thus it could be considered a completely separate vessel under assumingly no flag at all. talking about unlawfullnes of actions in international territory seems a bit offtopic. but i guess that these oceanic laws have very few laws about any unlawfulness of leaving your own sub before letting it implode.
now of course there are other people involved. family members may suffer the loss. but as for my suggested imaginary story line the persons that simply left the vessel would not contact their family any more at least for some time. but is it unlawful to not contact family members? i guess not. it might be unlawful to claim youre dead (wtf) but that is not what would have happened in the imagined story line i suggested to make much more sense to me. in that scenario other people (like gov agencies) would do that claim. not preventing gov to do false claims is usually not considered unlawful by govs that do false claims, otherwise … well that would be a very!! different story haha.
not telling anyone to still be alive may be odd, but not unlawful by itself. if one has a contract with an insurance company that states such an obligation, it would be failing to comply with a contract but not necessarily “unlawful” as such a contract is not a law, but a contract and might state like loss of insurance if one failed to comply. but then even if not telling your insurance company to still be alive is maybe a crime within the us, outside of it things could be very different especially when not in any country at all. like some laws do not count in some countries and thus doing so is not unlawful there.
would the intent to get a new identity, dropping the old one be harmful or unlawful? Not directly, there are lawful ways to get new identities in many countries on the world, most of them are pretty lawful and mostly the harm had then already been done to the person that gets the new identity. so i guess the intent of getting a new id is neither harmful nor unlawful and could simply be a formal process within the laws of the destination country. it could even be part of a process to protect persons who are in danger and law enforcement said, that a billionaire to get abnew id should also do something to disappear also in the minds before getting their new id and thus it could be completely possible that disappearing is in compliance with the law to protect a person who claimed to have been in danger and needed a believable disappearance for their security.
now to me it looks like i found some good arguments how the imaginary story line was neither harmful nor unlawful. and also described that it could be argued that no laws were in effect that would apply and make a life rescue mission an unlawful event in the mids of the ocean. even laws could actually have been used in compliance with gov entities to protect someone from an imaginary danger in this imaginary case.
in theory i could say that its not a conspiracy what i suggested as main factors do not apply or at least do not have to apply and i should be done now but lets look at the other points for the sake of completeness:
murder: wouldn’t have been done, but the exact opposite: saving lifes. again, discussion if rescueing billionaires could be considered harmful to the rest of the world, would be a bit too offtopic and not even in question here.
treason: wikipedia has a definition about that too: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason
Treason is the crime of attacking a state authority to which one owes allegiance.
Now i do not see a state beeing attacked in my imaginary story.
corruption:
Corruption is a form of dishonesty or a criminal offense which is undertaken by a person or an organization which is entrusted in a position of authority, in order to acquire illicit benefits or abuse power for one’s personal gain.
i don’t see a person or organization which was entrusted in a position of authority being dishonest in my imaginary story line. which authority was given to rush or oceangate? or which involved organization did something dishonest? none? so no corruption took place.
same is with that “political motivation” mentioned in wikipedia about conspiracy, i do not see a political motivation involved in what i wrote.
i’ld say there is no conspiracy in the suggested imaginary story i wrote, as not even one of the major points of a conspiracy would match at least a little bit. it would possibly be near to a crime, but without a law beeing in effect, it cannot be called a crime, right? so the story i wrote is not about a conspiracy.
did i overlook something? or are you just completely wrong?
i think it was not the whole hull but one of the materials, the hull was made of that had expired. well, carbon fibre has its strenght when pulled, but when pushing it bends. but if one uses resin on the fibre, then it gets some strenght when pushed too. similar to steel and concrete, while steel can really be pulled a lot, concrete is way better when pushed than steel. steel is quite stable when pushed too, but thats not its main strength. i think the resin was what really held the pressure in the sub, not the carbon fibre, but with this i only have that dangerous type of half-knowledge i’ld have to bring to expert level before doing something stupid (like depending on that to be fully true without really knowing).
in general things often last longer than their expected “minimum” to be used without concern. but in practice one would have to test for damage or if its worn out (like its done with airplane parts at fixed intervals) even without using materials of bad quality. but that was AFAIK what oceangate’s management decided to explicitly NOT check the sub for - despite internal demands to do so.
i would not say its not possible to build a secure pressure hull out of carbon fibre, or out of carbon fibre of not the best quality, or a hull of a different shape than a sphere, or a hull out of different materials with different bending behaviors under pressure, or when such components are “glued” together on the edges that do the different bending, but ALL of this at the same time and without even checking at least after a new maximum depth was reached? not to mention crackling sounds after which heared one would want to double check. Even the wright brothers seemed more cautious to me.
today one would at least get some wear level statistics with unmanned vehicles in a slightly deeper than intended depth to have security margins and afterwards throughout checks for the parts that are important, single points of failures or are one of the proudly new developed.
nah nah, the sub was not build “poorly”, it was just build with cheap and “lightweight” components!1!
now seriously i can understand ppl to try new components, technics etc. and going to such dives with your own build vessel is way more adequate than sending only others to dive with your deathtraps.
however what annoys me the most is that press was talking about an “engineering” failure and seemingly still most are saying so (at least i did until now not read someone saying it was not an engineering failure). In engineering you do tests, not only a functioning test, but also you test for durability and fractures, and you do that until you have at least good statistics to rely on how to schedule fracture tests of the components that face stresses or are important like fan blades in airplane engines, which are checked for fractures in regular maintenance intervals. but from what i know is that Rush was explicitly asked to let the carbon hull be tested for fractures which he then declined with management reasons in mind, that it would cost money and delay the success. thus to m it was a management decision, not an engineering failure.
And that one point that billionaires are involved, for me just puts the death into question. as rich ppl tend to want to get more richiness and some(all?)times like to betray and abuse, my first guess would be that the death could have been faked for getting things like extra insurance money, new identity etc. all they would have needed to do was to have another ship to help them, dive low to the other ship, get out of it, take their sound comm with them and put the sub into auto dive. answer some comm messages while they leave the site and make the sound comm look like they are as far away as they should be diving right now. if there weren’t billionaires, i would not think of such. but an intent to disappear could explain the management decision to skip all testing for fractures, would explain the rough towing behind the starting vessel and all other ignorances. but in this case they would not have been squished and not been idiots, just ordinary criminals. and in this case the success would be a hit-and-run instead of long time going to market, seeking other richies risky and stupid enough to dive that deep in a carbon vessel… to me everything i’ve heared just makes sense if that was a faked death, otherwise it all just does not make enough sense. or with other words: “a stupid billionaire wanting to do engineering but also not wanting to do so despite beeing in unprecedented material/rough terrain and actually asked to do fracture tests for security then fireing the engineer while having good intentions to allow for “cheap” touristic deep dives accidently killed himself by his own stupidity but was at the same time wise enough to put everything into place so the ‘passengers’ would not even have been ‘passengers’ officially but like engineers involved in building the vessel so that it could not even officially have been a commercial but only experimental vessel including all ppl on board where also everyone agreed on the exact risk that also actually happened in a place where the laws of his country do not count and the actual incident would also remove all evidences in one go” … if such a description does not make you scratch your head… and thats why i doubt they actually have been squished. For my “the removal of all evidences” … some explanations showed that it is unlikely that anything in the sub would not just beeing squished but also cut by a myriad of carbonfiber hull fragments while beeing sharp and harder than bones coming towards the inner of the sub at a very high velocity and such million cut pieces of human remains could quickly be carried away or just eaten up while hardly beeing able to be identified as human any more. thus my doubts about death maybe beeing just faked would highly depend on the actual results of DNA analysis of the recovered human remains while dna analysis seems unlikely to happen as there is no official doubt who was in that Vessel in the first place… help, i am stuck in a looop!
looking at the official timeline it is not completely a microsoft product, but…
i said that systemd was a microsoft product long before its developer was then hired by microsoft in 2022. And even if he wasn’t hired by them, systemd is still a microsoft-style product in every important way with all what is wrong in how microsoft does things wrong, beginning with design flaws, added insecurities and unneeded attack vectors, added performance issues, false promises, usage bugs (like i’ve never seen an already just logged in user to be directly be logged off in a linux system, except for when systemd wants to stop-start something in background because of it’s ‘fk y’ and where one would 'just try to login again and dont think about it" like with any other of microsofts shitware), ending in insecure and instable systems where one has to “hope” that “the providers” will take care for it without continueing to add even more superflous features, attack vectors etc. as they always did until now.
systemd is in every way i care about a microsoft product. And systemd’s attack vectors by “needless dependencies” just have been added to the list of “prooven” (not only predicted) to be as bad as any M$ product in this regard.
I would not go as far to say that this specific attack was done by microsoft itself (how could i ?), but i consider it a possibility given the facts that they once publicly named linux/open source a “cancer” and now their “sudden” change to “support the open source world” looks to me like the poison “Gríma” used on “Théoden” as well as some other observations and interpretations. however i strongly believe that microsoft secretly actually “likes” every single damage any of systemd’s pointlessly added dependencies or other flaws could do to linux/open source very much. and why shouldn’t they like any damage that was done to any of their obvious opponents (as in money-gain and “dictatorship”-power)? it’s a us company, what would one expect?
And if you want to argue that systemd is not “officially” a product of the microsoft company… well people also say “i googled it” when they mean “i used one of the search engines actually better than google.com” same with other things like “tempo” or “zewa” where i live. since the systemd developer works for microsoft and it seems he works on systemd as part of this work contract, and given all the microsoft style flaws within from the beginning, i consider systemd a product of microsoft. i think systemd overall also “has components” of apple products, but these are IMHO none of technical nature and thus far from beeing part of the discussion here and also apple does not produce “even more systemd” also apple has -as of my experience- very other flaws i did not encounter in systemd (yet?) thus it’s clearly not an apple product.
Before pointing to vulnerabilities of open source software in general, please always look into the details, who -and if so - “without any need” thus also maybe “why” introduced the actual attack vector in the first place. The strength of open source in action should not be seen as a deficit, especially not in such a context.
To me it looks like an evilish company has put lots of efforts over many years to inject its very own overall steady attack-vector-increase by “otherwise” needless increase of indroduction of uncounted dependencies into many distros.
such a ‘needless’ dependency is liblzma for ssh:
https://lwn.net/ml/oss-security/20240329155126.kjjfduxw2yrlxgzm@awork3.anarazel.de/
openssh does not directly use liblzma. However debian and several other distributions patch openssh to support systemd notification, and libsystemd does depend on lzma.
… and that was were and how the attack then surprisingly* “happened”
I consider the attack vector here to have been the superlfous systemd with its excessive dependency cancer. Thus result of using a Microsoft-alike product. Using M$-alike code, what would one expect to get?
*) no surprises here, let me predict that we will see more of their attack vectors in action in the future: as an example have a look at the init process, systemd changed it into a ‘network’ reachable service. And look at all the “cute” capabilities it was designed to “need” ;-)
however distributions free of microsoft(-ish) systemd are available for all who do not want to get the “microsoft experience” in otherwise security driven** distros
**) like doing privilege separation instead of the exact opposite by “design”
there was a study saying that there is not “the” best way of learning, but it is best to combine multiple ways, like with an app, by book, listening to audio only (i listened to radio stations via internet and got some exercise for free), a bit of talking, visiting a country that only speaks that language and so on. trying everything a bit in parallel.
that is because of our brain learns better when given more different types of “connections” to learn.
i started with duolingo (website only, not the app and only the free parts) 4 years ago and now i speak quite fluently. but i also partly read a book about grammatics, visited a spanish speaking country (more than once), viewed movies with only subtitle in my language and did lots of phone calls in spanish only.
my advice is:
look at free apps, whatever pleases you, take chances, listen to the sound (movies, radio), try to speak, and read easy books or go through exercise books.
duolingo is good to keep on going while not really motivated as the shortest thing that counts are really only minutes and one can choose to do something that is already easy. this way at least continuation is kept even if pace is down for a while. and it is much easier to go on with pace when not having really stopped.
maybe parts of it has an undenieable reason:
i have to admit, that my point ‘just don’t do it’ in reality does not garantee to prevent any trouble. it still is possible to be sued for things someone else did.
also one suggestion to think about:
if the seller just sprays some random changes over a book for every sold version, one would have differences in “every” sold version to every other sold version. by blindly changing those parts to something else you could reveal which exact two/three versions you had for diffing.
UPDATE: someone else here had the same thought a bit earlier…
my suggestion to not do it stays the same ;-)
it could be interesting to figure things out how they work, what could be done to prevent or circumvent such prevention, but actually doing it seems risky no matter what.
have a look on “snowdrop” (search together with “steganography”), its basically the opposite of what you want, but worth mentioning here. watermarks could be placed into whitespace (not limited to actual spaces or linebreaks, intentionally changed usage of paragraphs, tabs or even page boundaries could possibly be detected after scanning andeven after OCR. IMHO snowdrop uses -depending on choosen operation mode- small errors like misspelled words, commata etc but also has a mode that comes along with fine grammar and without misspelled words…
how do you make sure that by diff’ing two versions you do cover "everything’ that has been deliberately placed into both documents but share literally the same informations?
lets say you bought two books at two different stores with two different watermarks. if the watermark contains the date and time of the purchase and the only difference of this were the minutes because you bought them within the same hour, the remaining watermark would point to all buyers that bought exactly this book in this hour - worldwide. but still it could be “very” precise depending on all other(!) buyers, if they exist at all within that timeframe. what if the watermark includes unix epoch? then the part which is the same in both watermarks would not be bound by hours, but by seconds, 10seconds, 100seconds etc.
and you could not know if there were other watermarks hidden that just happened to be the same for your two (three.?) purchases (same country, continent, payment method, credit card holder name, name of internet provider used during purchase, browser used etc.) it fully depends on the creator of the watermark what would be included and what not. if you happem to know all that (without any possibleexemptions) you might be on the safe side, but if not…
my general suggestion here is:
just to mention… the “safe” side sometimes seems limited but maybe is actually not, if you really look at it.
the only cenario i actually use google search for but only in very rare occasions is when i am curious why i don’t find more results in another search engine, i then sometimes want to validate “missing” results are also missing in other/minor search engines that could theoretically have hits instead of misses, but usually i don’t find in google what i was already missing elsewhere, so mostly no gain, only sort of validation.
oleep was a pretty effective habit, we should have kept that as it removed all annoyances of aleep and bleep, while had all blessings that came with cleep, dleep… up to nleep, but some noobs wanting to play adult, created first pleep, then qleep wich was addictive and destructive preventing people from going back, not even to pleep. Then intentional enshittification was added and only sleep somehow was sort of a still acceptable solution but taking up like a third of the whole day while giving just as much relaxation to really “survive” the first two hours of a working day from which then the overall 90% of success at work comes from.
i miss the times aeons ago when oleep was still common, people were happier, friendlier, more productive and overall healthier.
cheers o_O 8-)
I cannot code like this currently, because my girlfriend occupies my laptop with doing her yoga.
tuché?
i think its also a very good symbol of how the US just forgets about even their very own laws at a snap of a finger and that no nation in the world (not even the us itself) can ever trust them with anything. like for example the so called freedom of religion when we’re at the Sioux Blackbhills anyway.