itslilith @ itslilith @lemmy.blahaj.zone

she/her

---

Read more

Posts

11

Comments

1,644

Joined

2 yr. ago

Assholes

Just another day for the genocide song contest

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otjl4rhnLPw

What you're calling "a physical definition with sources" would be more accurately as an online encyclopedia entry.

Alright, sure. L. D. Landau, E. M. Lishitz: Course on Theoretical Physics 5: Statistical Physics, English translation 1951, p. 467ff, subchapter Wetting.

This is established science. I just thought Wikipedia might be an easier introduction.

Generally speaking, encyclopedia articles focus on factual information concerning the subject named in the article's title; this is unlike dictionary entries, which focus on linguistic information about words, such as their etymology, meaning, pronunciation, use, and grammatical forms.

I don't know what point you're trying to make.

as in the dictionary example from the source you i guess now regret linking, water is wet.

What? I legit don't understand what you're trying to say. You linked a user-curated dictionary and pretended that's the be-all, end-all of definitions. I can do that as well, even if PhilosophyTube is going to beat my ass for it:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/wet

But I was talking about the scientific background of the term. This is not some hyper-specific term, but how it's used in almost* all of science.

*(The other somewhat common use is as a synonym of "humid", often used in climate amd atmospheric science. Which is irrelevant in the discussion "is water wet")

Basically, the process of making something wet requires a liquid (usually water) to actually stick to it, through intermolecular forces. That's slightly more narrow a requirement than the "needs to touch water" that's commonly thrown around. A lotus flower or water repellent jacket doesn't get wet, even if you spray water on it, the droplets don't actually stick to the surface.

Now, water molecules stick to each other as well, that's called surface tension. But wetness, at least in physics, is defined at an interface between two mediums, a liquid and a solid, or two liquids that don't mix

Synonym: wetting

This might just be me, but I'll take a physical definition with sources over a dictionary example sentence. But the meaning of words is fluid, like how "literally" now also means "figuratively", so if you don't, that's okay. In scientific literature, where precise language matters, "wet", "wetness", "wettability" and "wetting" all refer to the process I've linked, however.

Counter source 2:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetting

Wetting is the ability of a liquid to displace gas to maintain contact with a solid surface, resulting from intermolecular interactions when the two are brought together.[1] These interactions occur in the presence of either a gaseous phase or another liquid phase not miscible with the wetting liquid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetting

That is the actual definition tho

Arguing can be fun, and some of us just want a break from The Horrors™ every once in a while. Arguing a joke sounds like a nice, harmless change of pace

This is physically correct

Wetting is an actual physical process that occurs between a liquid and a solid, or two unmixable liquids:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetting

Wetting is the ability of a liquid to displace gas to maintain contact with a solid surface, resulting from intermolecular interactions when the two are brought together.[1] These interactions occur in the presence of either a gaseous phase or another liquid phase not miscible with the wetting liquid.

Shame on you for calling a deeply historic cultural dance "yelling like an animal". Fucking colonizer mindset is still alive and well, it seems

Tree(3) is craaazyyy

Why would anyone willingly use aluminium pots? Besides the demonstrated problem, it has also been linked to Alzheimer's and other health risks. No way I'm putting something acidic in there or heating it up

yes, but lead is

You're right, and I'm sorry if I came over as condescending. The thing is, with projects like these, you need to front load a lot of the safety concerns if you are going to be the one actually hosting the content. It'd be an easier entry to contribute to existing structures, staying more low-key and learning along the way. Many established projects are open-source and need programmers and hackers to help improve and secure their codebases, for example.

That said, if you wanted to start something of your own, I think Anna's blog is a nice starting point, before you delve into the technical nitty-gritty:

https://annas-archive.org/blog/blog-how-to-become-a-pirate-archivist.html

https://annas-archive.org/blog/how-to-run-a-shadow-library.html

Then, for the actual hosting process, much depends on the stack you use. Never pay for anything in a way that can be traced, which basically only leaves cash or anonymous crypto like Monero. Don't use any account names, emails, passwords, etc that you've ever used before. Never, ever go boasting to strangers, or even worse, friends, about what you're doing. Do all the standard things of hardening your servers, but always plan around some or all of them being shut down it seized. Even "bulletproof hosting" providers get raided every once in a while. That means decentralization, and don't put convenience over safety.

Now, while shadow libraries and other forms of media piracies certainly are sought-after targets, you're likely not going to be anyone's number one priority, while there's still rings of child abusers and terrorists on the web. But once you reach a certain size, state actors will come after you, like they did after z-lib a while ago. I don't have any comprehensive guides on Opsec (and I'm no expert on it, by any measure), but most of it boils down to common sense and keeping your mouth shut, anyways. Most people that get busted don't have missed some technical vulnerability, but because they've talked about their illegal projects on accounts linked to their real name, or something similarly trivial.

Becoming a provider (on any significant scale) should be treated like a second job, at least. If you want to go the silent route, you need to completely separate your daily life from the illegal stuff. Obvious stuff, like no shared email- or other accounts, but even down to no shared browser sessions. The old fashioned way is a second laptop. If you want to make an impact and contribute to the community, consider seeding torrents for some of the existing shadow libraries. Anna's Archive has about a petabyte of torrents that have less than three seeders, for example.

From the responses in this thread, it seems like OP is either a fed, or, much more likely, extremely inexperienced and naive when it comes to Opsec. At the very least, they are putting themselves at risk. Is it still advisable to leave this post up?

The publishers don't care. They're suing LibGen, scihub, etc nonetheless. Non-commercialism will not protect you. Crypto can be very traceable, it's by definition an open ledger, and "bulletproof servers" is a term applied very broadly, often by dubious actors. Besides that, any Opsec is only as strong as the weakest link. You're running a second domain via Namecheap, for fucks sake! Don't take this lightly, this is not a game. A state actor could probably identify you within days. Are you ready for that?

that's not how it works. the code and website may live on, but you are committing a crime right now (nothing wrong with that). If law enforcement comes after you, it won't matter if you've 'stepped away' in the mean time. You can either go the route of Anna, keep very tight Opsec and make sure nothing seeps through the cracks. Or you go the way of Alexandra Elbakyan, make your piracy public, to make a point. That means you willingly accept never being able to travel anywhere that has enforced copyright laws. If you half-ass it somewhere in between, you will get caught, and you will face prison time or hefty fines (potentially millions). Are you aware of that?