5C5C5C @ 5C5C5C @programming.dev

Posts

0

Comments

245

Joined

2 yr. ago

Your credentials don't fix the logical fallacy.

You're making a logical fallacy called affirming the consequent where you're assuming that just because the backdoor was caught under these particular conditions, these are the only conditions under which it would've been caught.

Suppose the bad actor had not been sloppy; it would still be entirely possible that the backdoor gets identified and fixed during a security audit performed by an enterprise grade Linux distribution.

In this case it was caught especially early because the bad actor did not cover their tracks very well, but now that that has occurred, it cannot necessarily be proven one way or the other whether the backdoor would have been caught by other means.

The fact that it was discovered early due to bad actor sloppiness does not imply that it could not have also been caught prior to wide spread usage via security audits that take place for many enterprise grade Linux distributions.

Personally I suspect they're getting all the information they care about via subpoenas on big data and social media companies. They don't have a need to compromise security on a technical level anymore because the justice system itself is compromised. That means backdoors only benefit national enemies at this point, so the NSA of today would rather those not exist at all.

Of course that's not to say anyone should trust those agencies at their word on anything.

At least he spared us from Oz becoming a senator. Even with the personality change, he isn't nearly as bad as that grifter. Now hopefully someone can primary him when his seat is available, or better yet maybe someone can convince him to step aside since he's no longer the person he used to be.

Not enough people have been asking the real question: What was this DEI mayor doing on 9/11? How could he have let that happen? Does he hate America?

(/s shouldn't be necessary, but these days I can't risk leaving it out since reality has become indistinguishable from satire)

(On a more serious note, if this is happening to you then you're not following the instructions to clean the device and replace the filter once a month.)

You have a talent for metaphor.

You're right, he was there since 2009, so he has probably been helping to design the cannibalization, but it certainly didn't begin with him.

By all credible accounts the systemic issues at Boeing predate this CEO by probably 2 decades. Dave Calhoun seems to specialize in "troubled companies", i.e. he has never been anything more than a professional scape goat.

Edit: I didn't do enough research, he hasn't really been CEO at many places, just upper positions like director and board member. Still, the companies he specializes in seem to be the ones with reputations to cannibalize for money by cutting quality and screwing consumers, like GE.

In Deep Space 9 there's an episode called "Trials and Tribble-ations" where a number of the crew from DS9 go back in time and find themselves in the TOS episode "Trouble with Tribbles". The producers literally overlayed the DS9 cast onto TOS footage, and shot some new clips in the same setting, so canonically the DS9 crew was present for the events of the TOS episode (... at least as canonically as you can get when time travel is involved).

Warf and O'Brien were two of the DS9 crew involved in that episode, and they also happen to be on the Enterprise when Scotty is found trapped in a pattern buffer.

And you HAVE TO eat it.

I genuinely believe there is a disturbingly substantial portion of the right wing that scientifically recognizes the threat posed by the climate crisis but believes it's just God's instrument for the end times, so not only is it not a problem but it's actually a good thing to perpetuate.

Congratulations, you're halfway there! Just two more times and you'll never catch it again 😁

Beyond personal safety concerns, I want to boycott Boeing whole sale. Make the whole brand toxic to airlines, period. Make airlines decide that they lose too much business to their use of Boeing to ever use their planes again. If Boeing doesn't totally collapse, other airplane makers will eventually follow their example.

The overwhelming cost in these projects is always engineering salaries. These companies are making the calculation that they can throw shit (rockets) at the wall (into space) carelessly to save money by wasting more material to avoid paying the salaries of people that could think through the design more carefully and come up with something that will have a reasonable probability of working the first time.

And you can attack that issue by a combination of penalising companies that create debris and rewarding those that remove it under a capitalist economy

Add this to the insurmountable pile of things we should theoretically regulate but never will because of regulatory capture.

And money is the only cost that matters, right? Let's not be concerned about the material waste involved in the launch or the pollution that's building up in outer space with each failure.

This kind of business oriented mindset is why Boeing planes are falling out of the sky and dropping their bolts.

Also the cost being cited for those early space programs involved an immense amount of breakthrough R&D which the newer programs ought to be benefiting from; there's no reason to believe that a government program doing the same work as these private companies today would cost as much as they did in the early days. It's not even a meaningful quantitative comparison in the first place.

Capitalism is all about efficiency. An efficient total loss is somehow a win!

I'm curious, do you have first hand experience with dogs before and after being neutered?

My father-in-law has three pedigree (blech) dogs, each one a different breed, one boy and two girls, who he refuses to neuter because he likes the idea of being able to breed them with other pedigree dogs and sell the puppies or give them to family.

Wait no sorry he HAD three dogs until the male started raping the females. That created a new generation of dogs in his household, and then the brothers started raping the sisters creating another generation. Now my FIL puts chastity belts on all the dogs, but that still didn't stop another litter from showing up.

Even though he's given away more than half the litter he still has 8 frenzied dogs occupying his household. The girls attack each other when they're in heat, the boys fight each other and try to rape the girls even though they're all wearing chastity belts so it just ends up being impotent acts of violence against each other. His house is a hellscape of barking and fighting but he still refuses to neuter because he has some ridiculous notions about God's plan and procreation being sacred, even as he tries to prevent them from procreating using physical restraints.

In my own home I have two neutered rescue dogs, both mongrels, one male and one female. They don't fight and the male never tries to rape the female. They're very high anxiety dogs because of trauma in their early lives, but they're calm at home with each other as long as no one rings the doorbell. The worst thing my male dog has ever tried to do to my female dog is aggressively sniff and lick her genitals, but we stop that whenever it starts up because that carries high risk of a yeast infection for her.

I don't bring my dogs to the dog park anymore because too many assholes with large breed dogs that they refuse to neuter are unleashing their dogs there, and those big unneutered male dogs like to try raping my male dog. There's no question that it's rape because he tries to escape them, but these big dogs all swarm him and hump him like he's a female. I've had to clean dog cum off of him before.

Now my male dog is traumatized and scared of larger male dogs by default, which is frustrating because there are some large male dogs in our neighborhood who are nice and would make good friends but my male dog is too scared to give them a chance.

So basically, I don't really care about the semantic argument around whether or not neutering can qualify as sexual assault or sexual violence. Those terms imply harmful intent and/or harmful outcomes for the victim, and my personal experience tells me that there's far more harm done by leaving dogs unneutered. I don't believe in arguments about what's "natural" because it's part of human nature to manipulate our environment, and that manipulation can have positive or negative effects. We should judge the merit of our choices based on those effects. Letting nature run its course is not inherently virtuous.

I intentionally avoided making any reference specifically to Down's syndrome because I've known people with Down's syndrome who are high functioning and independent, but I've also known people with Down's syndrome who can't get their own pants on without assistance (I mean this literally and objectively as a reference point for cognitive function, not as a joke).

So I'm not going to suggest that all people with Down's syndrome should be actively prevented from birthing children. But I think anyone with a hereditary disorder that severely affects quality of life should be carefully and empathetically counseled through the question of procreation with an honest discussion of the risks involved. Someone with high functioning Down's syndrome may be able to live a perfectly happy life without much assistance, but what kind of risk would they be putting on their prospective child who will have a high likelihood of also getting the syndrome and may have a much worse case of it?

I don't believe in forced sterilization or forced prevention, and I don't believe in selecting for genes based on race or "positive" qualities, so what I'm suggesting is not eugenics. It's simply encouraging people to consider the long term consequences of their decisions and evaluate the risks they are placing on other people (their prospective children) who cannot consent to being born under those risks.

As for individuals with cognitive faculties that are too limited to make any assessment about those risks, they will not be living independently, so I hope their caretaker would not put them in a situation where procreation is a concern to begin with.

And going back to the original matter of non-human animals, I stand by my point that those animals won't be burdened by the knowledge that they can no longer procreate so they won't have any long lasting trauma from the operation. That combined with the importance of reducing unhoused dog and cat populations (which are extremely difficult to control because of how quickly they reproduce) makes the value judgment on this matter a very easy one for me.