jarfil @ jarfil @lemmy.world

Posts

2

Comments

763

Joined

2 yr. ago

You can replace the OS with one you trust more. Can also replace the browser, and "irregular people" can fix stuff in OpenSource OSs and browsers. Malware is easy to avoid, just don't execute random stuff. Other people knowing the password to your PC, is up to you.

Hackers generally don't hack OSs, users are much easier to hack.

Old flash drives used to be all SLC.

Newer ones, use the cheapest tech for the same capacity, with QLC being about 16 times less reliable than SLC.

LastPass didn’t actually encrypt your entire vault. They only encrypted the passwords. The rest of the vault, (which would be comprised of usernames and the sites that are associated with them, notes

Wait a moment... now I wonder how many people kept their crypto wallet recovery word lists as notes instead of as passwords.

It's like the rule of money, but with nukes: those who have the money/nukes, make the rules.

Weird "enemy" who's actively supporting 99% of one's war efforts.

By that rule of thumb, would the US be an "enemy" for being reluctant to supply latest gen weaponry to Ukraine?

As an EU citizen, I fully support EU's "messing" with Russia to support Ukraine, and I thank our NATO allies for keeping us "in this sh*".

NASA is basically being forced by Congress to funnel SLS program money into select contractors against NASA's own assessments. I don't think you want any of their hands near SpaceX if you want it to stay operational.

He did this with federal funds

Apparently this was before he got federal funds.

Why not both? Bin Laden had a $7million a year stipend until just a few years earlier.

NASA just contracts everything out. I think NASA would be much different if they had something like SpaceX (and was funded properly).

NASA gets so much funding for the SLS, which is so expensive, that NASA itself is saying it's throwing money away. It's US Congress routing tax payer funding to disastrously inefficient contractors, not to have an actually functional space program.

the US and UA authorities paid for it a fat coin

They didn't, at least not officially until way into the war.

Except the network was already off, he refused to switch it on for a foreign country's operation without his own country's approval. On purpose.

How did he know that specific attack was planned?

Ukraine asked him to extend Starlink coverage for the attack.

No conspiracy theory needed, they just told him.

Except it wasn't "removed", he declined to "extend" it before getting paid by those tax payers.

"Ukraine" telling a "US citizen" what to do, are the critical words here.

If Russia wants to be at war with the US, they can issue a war declaration.

They haven't so far, and they know why.

So if you're not an American you're free to sabotage the US as much as you want and it's not a crime?

Two points.

First, US laws apply on US soil, or to US citizens. If you're neither, then cooperation and extradition agreements apply, if there are any.

Second, not sure where you got the "sabotage the US" part from:

• the request came from Ukraine
• from the beginning, Musk has been sabotaging Russia by disabling Starlink outside of Ukrainian borders, this was supported by both Ukraine and the US
• the Ukrainian request was for removing part of the sabotage so Ukraine could attack Russia with Ukrainian drones
• it wasn't a US request, it didn't involve any US assets, or any US operations

Maybe Ukraine should have asked the US, instead of asking a private non-Ukrainian citizen.

the olny iprmoetnt tihng is

I tinhk you mnaet "iprmoatnt"...

"To the end of the road" doesn't change meanings when the road gets extended another 10 miles. The point changes, the definition doesn't.

Threshold has changed, the definition is still the same, we're just getting better at reverting the stop of some activities, like breathing or heartbeat. If we someday could revert neuronal depolarization, that would be great, but it seems difficult to achieve.

The other part is not just philosophy, it's the best we can do to define a "self". The philosophical part is only whether we can consider them a continuum, or whether we have to see them as usually similar but separate (there are reasons to support both versions).