Dsklnsadog @ Dsklnsadog @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts

4

Comments

166

Joined

2 yr. ago

I don’t think it’s bad advice for most people. Maybe it’s just bad advice for your treat model

First, use the first 10 bytes of the file as a sanity check. throw in two random bytes like 0x55AA so you know the file isn’t broken. add a loop counter to track how many times you’ve lived the same week (bonus points for crying when you hit loop 9999), toss in a basic checksum to make sure your data isn’t glitched.

Then dedicate like 800 bytes to a super compressed log. Each entry is 8 bytes: a code for what you tried (like action 23 = “mess with the sketchy microwave”), the day and time crammed into 2 bytes, a yes/no/weird result, and a tiny note like “key under rug” but in code. Only keep the last 100 entries so you don’t run out of space.

The leftover 200-ish bytes are for tracking. Use bits to mark places you’ve already checked (like “room D14 done”) and actions you’ve tried (so you stop repeating “throw spaghetti at the wall”).

Every reset, open the file, see your last loop’s fails (like “loop 420: died petting a possum”), Then try something new, focus on unmarked areas and untested actions this is because if you notice a pattern (like “tv static every tuesday”), write it as “tues=F9=glitchinmatrix” or whatever.

After 200 loops, maybe you’ll crack the code (literally) or realize the exit was behind the fridge the whole time.Oor you’ll just accept your fate and start a cult (the 1k chosen ones!) . Either way, you’re out.

tldr: use the 1kb to avoid repeating mistakes, track patterns, and maybe escape before you start talking to a lamp.

It’s a natural instinct to lower your defenses with someone who speaks like you. That doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.

Are you still talking about me? Oh man... so sad.

The important is to do it the first time. Then just upgrade the app.

If you're gonna try to control information, at least get your act together and don’t expose your own internal data like some half-baked project. Their careless handling of censorship just shows that when you’re too busy playing Big Brother, you end up making a huge mess of things.

Today is a great day for the scammer community

You must be fun because you love pornstars! I don't so I'm boring! I'm going for some fun grass now. Have a good one.

Never was. But is a good option to hide your torrents from your ISP

Not to be that guy but... go out and touch some grass.

No. If you are not an us citizen you have no "american rights" until you cross the border. They can even steal your phone and make you tell them your password.

But isn't your family in the States? I read a while ago that immigration can sometimes be vindictive toward former citizens who renounced their citizenship when it comes to applying for a visa—even if it’s just for a tourist visit to their former country

He just wants to fight. Leave him alone, like his dad did.

The best thing you can do is just ignore it. Like I'm doing with this thread after this comment. Have a great day!

DING DING DING DING

I use standard notes.

I get what you’re saying, and I don’t disagree that the abstraction makes it easier for investors to detach themselves from the reality of what’s happening. But at the same time, isn’t that part of how all markets work? Investors don’t make the rules—they just operate within them. When it comes to private prisons, for example, the wrongful imprisonment of innocents or mass deportations aren’t supposed to be part of the “business model.” That’s a failure of the state, not the investor. In theory, these facilities exist to meet state demand for detention, which should be lawful and just (even if we know that’s not always the case).

And honestly, this kind of abstraction isn’t unique to private prisons. Look at almost any other industry:

Investing in food companies? You’re indirectly supporting things like worker exploitation, environmental damage, or factory farming (which involves a lot of animal suffering). Transportation? Cars, planes, and ships pollute the planet on a massive scale. Tech? There’s often exploitative labor behind those shiny gadgets, not to mention privacy violations or harmful social media algorithms. Fashion? Fast fashion profits off sweatshops and massive environmental waste.

If you zoom in on any one of these industries, the moral complications are everywhere. But most of us don’t expect investors to shoulder the blame for all of this—they’re operating within the system as it exists. To me, the real responsibility lies with governments and regulators to set the rules and hold these industries accountable. Investors aren’t actively making the decisions that harm people; they’re just responding to opportunities in the market.

At the end of the day, if we reject every investment tied to something morally gray, we’d have to swear off almost everything. I think that’s where the abstraction helps—it lets people focus on their role (whether as investors, consumers, or workers) without taking on all the guilt for how the system fails. Is it perfect? No, but it’s how the world works right now.

Are you saying is not? When applied to investments, the abstraction becomes even more pronounced. As investors, individuals might focus on profit potential (commodities and returns) without directly engaging with or even acknowledging the human or social costs underlying those profits. The market acts as a buffer, depersonalizing the consequences and further alienating participants from the broader social implications of their actions.

So, yes, you’ve heard this before, and it’s a classic critique of how capitalism distorts and reframes human connections in terms of profit and exchange! Marx argues that under capitalism, commodities take on a life of their own, obscuring the labor and social relations that produced them. The true connections between people—worker to worker, worker to consumer, are hidden behind the veil of market exchange.

The question of morality in investments is not absolute; it depends on how one frames responsibility and agency.

Markets are amoral tools. Financial markets operate independently of moral judgments. When individuals invest in an industry, they are not necessarily endorsing its practices but recognizing an opportunity within existing systems. One can argue that targeting an investment does not equate to creating or exacerbating the problems within that industry.

The existence of private prisons and deportation schemes reflects systemic issues, not individual investors. Policies and demand for incarceration stem from government choices and public sentiment. As such, targeting investors as "bad people" shifts focus away from the policymakers and institutions enabling these systems.

Some may justify these investments pragmatically: by securing financial stability, individuals can later support progressive causes, donate to charities, or fund organizations fighting for systemic change. For example, an investor might use the returns to support immigrant advocacy groups or lobby for prison reform.

There is algo "Separation of Investment and Values". Not every decision must align with one’s ideological framework. People often compartmentalize their personal lives from their professional or financial strategies. A leftist could rationally engage in capitalism as a survival mechanism within an inescapable capitalist framework while still advocating for systemic change.

Many industries—tech, energy, or agriculture—have problematic practices, from exploitative labor to environmental harm. Singling out private prisons overlooks the broader complexity of investing in any sector. Most portfolios inadvertently include industries with ethical concerns, such as fossil fuels or fast fashion.

Defending this investment as not inherently immoral hinges on the premise that financial actions alone do not define someone’s character. Morality lies in how individuals balance their actions, mitigate harm, and contribute positively to society. However, ethical investments often require introspection and alignment with long-term values. While investing in private prison contractors can be defended on pragmatic or systemic grounds, it’s worth questioning whether the financial gain outweighs the potential ethical compromise.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?