well said!
imo it’s not a coincidence the public are being steered away from supporting graphene. it’s one thing to see the general public do this (they will do whatever their told), but seeing countless people who supposedly should know better its quite disturbing.
admittedly i’m not up to date on all the drama, but i thought that graphene saw themselves as victims of alt attacks?
some of it is kind of inevitable when you see how far ahead from everyone else they are technically and when people shitting on their work just aren’t at their (technical) level it seems to be very draining. and eventually lead to dramas.
yeh but nah
they infiltrate our environmental groups. legally and illegally coerce us & our our “leaders”. have been systematically attacking, undermining & removing funding for renewables & climate research for decades. environmental protesters are “legally” assaulted, kidnapped, beaten & sometimes killed by their hired goons, meanwhile neo-nazis march with impunity.
it’s not simply a matter of them offering one alternative and just letting the market decide. they engage in unbelievable levels of corruption, coercion, deception, even genocide to steal natural resources from first nations people.
meanwhile the public, barely keeping their heads above water, exploited, subjugated & worn to the bone, oftimes struggling to survive, make almost the only non-choice they can barely even choose from.
yes the majority are to blame, for alot, but also recall we’re talking about an average, likely poorly educated person going up against billion dollar brainwashing machinery (oftimes utilising research paid for with our tax dollars initially performed for therapeutic use, now weaponised in a twisted perversion of their original intent)
like you aren’t wrong. but there is alot more to the story.
carlin is certainly on point in his quote you cited, and you are right this is perhaps the most difficult to reconcile aspect.
let us weigh this alongside another poignant quote of his:
The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you.
for alot of people their relationship with windows is like that of an abusive partner. which is why you see alot of the same excuses pop up
honestly surprised to see so many downvotes.
I’ve been trying to compact my writing lately, and perhaps failed to communicate clearly. because i really felt like i’d already pre-agreed with everything you wrote when i said
society currently seems to project an emotionally stunted image onto the male identity. but it’s important to note this is a sickness in current society rather than anything inherently “male”.
obviously i didn’t communicate properly, because imo that’s in perfect agreement with what you said here
how we’re socialised to handle our feelings also plays a big role
this is what i meant about society projecting an ‘incomplete’ image onto the male identity. i want to stress here, this isn’t a statement about any man, or even men as a group. imo it has nothing to do with “maleness” and everything to do with an impossibly hamstrung identity being thrust onto people. by impossible i mean it’s literally impossible for any human to exist as an emotional shadow like that. no human can do it & we’re expecting 50% of the population to magically achieve it. whatcouldgowrong.jpg
i’ve spent quite some time trying to work out exactly where it comes from, i’m still not sure but i feel like a big dose of victorian era repression sure didn’t help, plus perhaps alot of unprocessed trauma from the men who went to WW1 and experienced an entirely unprecedented form of PTSD en masse (what at the time was called shellshock) those men who came home brought it into their families and became our fathers fathers fathers etc etc. it’s definitely intergenerational imo.
i also think as society progresses technologically, there is less need for ‘male brute force’ to ‘provide’, so it will naturally create a bit of a vacuum in the perceived “male role”. i can easily imagine an alternate history where something positive and strong had filled this vacuum instead of the poisoned version we got.
i personally deeply do not believe it is something inherent in men, and i think this is supported by the stats you raise which shows a disparity in the distribution vs world average.
rather i very much see this as a deep flaw in our current society, men are emotionally hamstrung and have dangerously impossible emotional expectations placed on them (again, this isn’t the fault of any one gender or group, it is society at large to blame here). (and of course equally insane but different expectations are thrust onto all genders)
a huge part of the problem imo is when boys are taught not to cry - actually wait, it’s even worse, they’re taught “boys don’t cry”, this is an unbelievable absurdity. crying is natural, normal & healthy. not only denying boys & men this natural emotional outlet, but tangling it up with the idea that “boys don’t do it” therefore if one does, some part of their supposed identity is under threat. it’s quite simply unbelievably toxic, it’s literally poison. and. it. hurts. everyone.
but that’s fundamentally why i think calling it ‘The male loneliness epidemic’ is hurtful to everyone. alongside all the usual ragebait hooks, there’s the sleight of hand of reducing a monumental issue to a fragment of the actual scale of the problem.
imo the rise of loneliness effects both women & men about equally in terms of scope.
the push to strongly gender the ‘epidemic’ one way or the other is classic ragebait.
Yes society currently seems to project an emotionally stunted image onto the male identity. but it’s important to note this is a sickness in current society rather than anything inherently “male”.
and it’s causing alot more suffering for all genders than just ‘loneliness’. calling it The male loneliness epidemic is just loaded with so many hooks, it’s just classic bait.
men vs women is “powerful” for ragebait because it’s literally half the population vs the other half.
I don’t think they’re disputing any of that if it’s hosted locally (including safely remote accessed by you). i think they’re talking about it being fed to the cloud & commoditised, which is a valid concern imo.
no problem solving in bed when you should be resting. if something pops up, identify it & make a note (mental or otherwise) to address it at a later time.
without further explanations of OP’s intent i’m inclined to think this is perhaps the best approach
and it’s much easier to DRM
exactly
default: on
user: explicitly turns off
random “update”: defaults back on
Now wait 1 year
i’m not an expert, but here’s my take.
personally i question when such movements take power that we should interpret it as consent by the public majority.
part of the reason the public apparently bestow power to the machinery of government is because the machinery is supposed to protect them from this very thing happening.
the fact that it is happening, means such a rise in fact did not occur within the correct functioning of that machine.
therefore we should probably question whether we should interpret it as consent by the majority.
and if its not consent by the majority, then in some ways the picture is both bleaker and brighter.
brighter, because you’re not surrounded by quite so many evil fucks as they wanted you to believe
bleaker, well, probably don’t need to explain that bit
ok fair enough, sorry i may have misinterpreted what you meant.
it sounds like your argument is that if the attacker doesn’t know the service is running then the assertion that this reduces the risk profile is classified as an obscurity control - this argument is correct under these conditions.
however, certain knocking configurations are not obscurity, because their purpose & value does not depend on the hope that the attacker is unaware of the service’s existence but rather to reduce the attacker’s window of access to the service with a type of out of band whitelisting. by limiting the attacker’s access to the service you are reducing the attack surface.
you can imagine it like a stack call trace, the deeper into the trace you go, every single instruction represents the attack surface getting larger and larger. the earlier in the trace you limit access to the attacker, you are by definition reducing the attack surface.
in case i’ve misinterpreted what you meant. susceptibility to a replay attack does not mean something isn’t a security measure. it means it’s a security measure with a vulnerability. ofc replay attacks in knocking is a well known problem addressed long ago.
perhaps the other source of miscommunication is for us to remember that security is about layers, because no single layer is ever going to be perfect.
if you can’t work out what knocking might have to do with whitelisting then i’m not sure what you hoped to contribute towards reducing misconceptions in the conversation
would you classify out of band whitelisting by IP (or other session characteristic[s]) as having no security merit whatsoever?
would you classify it as purely a decision regarding network congestion & optimisation?
you’re ofc free to define these things however you wish, but in a form which is helpful to OP’s question i’m not sure i follow you.
oh look, the thing they told us would never happen when this shit was installed
the creep is real.
thought for the day: is thin wedge always a fallacy when it’s always fucking coming true?
I fucking hate this timeline.
my first thought as well…how did we get to the point that this is a valid topic?
(not a comment about you OP, just the state of the world)
to reduce attack-surface, if there’s no reason for the port to be open, don’t open it.
i think i can answer this
personally, when i first encountered graphene’s radical statements about the terrible security landscape we’re all subjected to, i reacted quite negatively & assumed they were crazy.
then i actually check the technical details of their claims, and fuck me it turns out to be SCARILY correct.
most people don’t actually bother with the second part. and you end up with a classic “shoot the messenger” scenario, where the bearer of bad news is equated with the bad news itself & punished by the mob (because they feel it’s easier than actually facing the uncomfortable reality of the bad news).
that scenario can only play out for so long before the messenger gets sick of being shot every day & reacts badly to the crowd. then the crowd points at their poor reaction & uses it as further “evidence” against their character.