notabot @ notabot @lemm.ee

Due to the impending lemm.ee shutdown I have migrated to notabot@piefed.soc

---

Read more

Posts

2

Comments

654

Joined

2 yr. ago

It's not for him, it's for everyone who had to survive.

You don't want 'em too elastic, or they ping off and get lost under the cupboard.

SIGKILL again? That implies it's been KILLed before and either survived, or come back. Either way, we don't like zombie processes in these parts.

/me fetches the really big process remover/cattle prod.

"I am mighty hunter! I kill it! I kill it with my teefs!"

Steady on Satan, they're only a credit card company! They're bad, but not that bad!

Rather than a platform, I've been wondering if you could rig it so opening the box opens some holes on the bottom, so they think they dodged the worst of it, pick it up to dispose of it and get a desk full from underneath.

That's a fair observation, but I assume they're trained to deal with suspicious packages safely, and that stuff will get transfered throughout the whole building and make everyone's lives that bit more 'special'. It'll still hit the bottom line too.

I was going to say that not every four panel cartoon is loss, but now that I look at the expressions, they sort of make sense...

Don't use a rock, use 10lb of glitter.

The trouble is, you have to account for transport costs that way. Either to bring it to them, or them to it. A Redundant Array of Inexpensive Decapitators (or RAID array) gives you higher throughput, better resilience to component failures and can lower your total costs versus building a single entity that is robust enough to be as reliable.

I am, of course joking. Unfortunately, just eliminating billionaires, cathartic though it might be, wouldn't actually solve any problems as it doesn't meaningfully redistribute that wealth, or stop someone else accumulating in the same way, only with better personal security. It's going to take changing the system at a much deeper, more fundamental, level than that. At the point it becomes actively undesirable to the individual to accumulate that much wealth, and I don't think mere threats to their physical safety will do that, you've effectively decapitated capitalism.

Possesive spirit, 5 minutes later: "Let me out! Let me go back to hell!"

Me: "Nope, you pushed in, now you gotta drive."

Spirit: "Please? At least it's warm there."

I'm not a truck-nut-ologist, so I don't have much to go on, and it's frustratingly difficult finding accurate dimensions for them online. I have found this delightfulawful pair (I had to look at them, so so do you).

The entire structure is approximately 40cm tall, and I measure that as 660 pixels, it look like the main 'bulk' of it is in the lower 330 pixels, or 20cm, and about 375 pixels wide, or around 23cm. If we assume that section is half as thick as it is wide, and approximate it as a cuboid (I've rounded the numbers, and unrounded the shape), that gives a volume of 5290cm^3, which is disturbingly close to the value you calculated as necessary. Allowing for the top section, I think they might just do the job.

Obviously those numbers are very approximate, but I've started at that model enough that it'll haunt my dreams, and 'Ten million aircraft carriers' is an approximate enough description, that I think we can say it's within reasonable tolerances of being accurate.

Thanks, this is a really handy tool. Kniwing the information was being withheld 'just because' was really rankling me. Now, could you just add a quick feature to read their minds and tell me why they down voted me? ;)

From the article, that should be 10^{17 kg/m}3, not 1017kg/m^3. No, I haven't checked the conversion to aircraft carriers per trucknut, I'm going to take the original author's word for it.

I like this plan. The first half made me hate it, which is a pretty good sign it's hitting the right key points of environmental destruction, profiteering, crypto, bad crypto and buying influence, but then brings it back right at the end.

You're going to have to be careful not to touch anything at the dinner before shaking hands, you wouldn't want to give the game away too early.

I think your points are well made, but there is another possibility to consider, and that is deliberate language choice for effect. They certainly could have simply called it a bribe, and that would be true enough, but in my opinion lacks 'punch'. We're so used to that sort of behaviour that many people would pretty much just go "yup, that's expected" and move on. By deliberately, and somewhat archly, using understatement, the reader goes "Buying good will?? That's not buying good will, that's bribery! Buying good will shouldn't even be a thing!" thus neatly bypassing the first level of cynasism that a simpler statement would run in to.

I'm not going to say that us definitely what happened here, but looks quite deliberate to me. Language can be weaponised in many different ways, for different causes.

For proper user authentication the model always used to be that the user should present three things: something they were (a username for instance), something they knew (a password), and something they had (a OTP from a device, or a biometric). The idea being that, even if a remote attacker got hold of the username and password, they didn't have the final factor, and if the user was incapacitated or otherwise forced to provide a biometric, they wouldn't necessarily supply the password (or on really secure systems, they'd use a 'panic' password that would appear to work, but hide sensitive information and send an alert to the security team).

Now we seem to be rushing into a system where you have only two factors, the thing you have, namely your phone, and the other thing you have, namely a fingerprint or your face. Notably you can't really change either of those, especially your biometrics, so they're entirely useless for security. Instead your phone should require a biometric and a password to unlock. The biometric being 'the thing you are', the phone 'the thing you have', and the password being 'the thing you know.

So, yes, I'm entirely against fingerprint unlocking.

I'm sure you've already considered it, but from that description it sounds very much like make. That compares the input files' timestamps to the output files' timestamps, so it might be different to your plan though.

Every time I come across this I end up almost crying from laughter, the pacing and humour are just about perfect.

The hind legs also have the joints in proportionally the wrong places compared to the skeleton. I reckon they gave it to the intern to reconstruct, and they just hastily banged it out last thing on a Friday afternoon after a liquid lunch.