voodooattack @ voodooattack @lemmy.world

Posts

21

Comments

318

Joined

2 yr. ago

Maybe try another distro?

Also I’m curious. What distro were you testing with?

I'd just like to interject for a moment…

Do you think Native Americans would agree to define him as an explorer too, then?

But this is accurate. Columbus was an explorer, that was his mission. I've read his letters to Spain and he wanted to find bounty for the Spanish crown to convince them to give him more money.

And Adolf Hitler was a politician. That was his “mission”. We don’t define Hitler by his career though.

He murdered, tortured, enslaved kidnapped, interrogated, and raped people to find even more bounty.

I guess he went above and beyond on that mission, yeah? By your definition he seems more like a bounty-hunter/privateer and not an explorer, but worse in every way. (And how is rape supposed to tie into this narrative about his goal of securing more funding anyway?)

But he was an explorer, not a conquistador or conqueror. Those were military positions.

So by your logic, not having a military position pardons any atrocities he committed and waives the reason to call him anything other than “explorer”? He was a butcher and a rapist. That’s a fact.

You don’t need a rank and a hat to become a sanctioned piece of shit. That can happen sans the hat.

This post is ignorant.

Is this your opinion, or an “accurate” fact too?

(Replying to yours to officially welcome you into this pile of brothers/sisters/siblings where we type in parentheses and where none shall be ever lonely)

Yet they both committed atrocities (torture, murder, rape and god knows what else) and only one is being hailed as “explorer”.

Edit: I’m not saying we should hail Genghis Khan as an explorer, I’m saying that Christopher Columbus should be deplored as a murderer and a marauder, not praised as an explorer.

(Also deleting mine since you did the research!)

You should stop overanalysing the problem. Let’s keep it simple and have a crack at this later.

The right person to follow during a zombie apocalypse.

Attack on Titan. Surprised it got no mention here.

“You blow, Jobs, you arrogant prick…”

Texit?

https://www.spacebar.news/stop-using-brave-browser/

Edit: If you can’t switch to Firefox and you’re looking for a good alternative that’s privacy-focused and functionally similar, take a look at Vivaldi. Solid chrome-based browser.

To window sill, and down he jumped,

I watched in awe, his awesome stunt,

He looked me down, and suddenly spoke:

“I might be a pussy, but you’re a big cunt!”

Use Heroic for GOG/EGS. It also runs steam games if you want a unified experience.

Edit: https://heroicgameslauncher.com/

Not sure how to link a reply on lemmy so I’ll just copy from another comment I wrote here:

I’m not talking about this specific instance, just that block of misinformation/generalisation. Saying that legacy systems are well-secured because they’re “battle tested” is sheer ignorance.

Take side-channel attacks for example. A timing attack is something programmers from the 60’s and 70’s would not have taken into account when writing their hashing algorithms. And speaking of hashing, what hashing algorithms were available back then? CRC32 or something similar? What about salting? You get the idea.

Not to mention that legacy operating systems don’t get security updates. Let’s assume that DOS is secure (which it definitely isn’t), but if that statement were correct, would it apply to Windows XP as well?

All I’m saying is that the article is dead wrong. As software developers in this century, we’ve come a long way. We’ve developed security best practices, written libraries and frameworks, and come up with mitigations for a lot of these security vulnerabilities. These solutions are something that closed-source legacy systems (and anything without active maintenance) would never benefit from.

The “ironing” is lost on you in this case.

I’m not talking about this specific instance, just that block of misinformation/generalisation. Saying that legacy systems are well-secured because they’re “battle tested” is sheer ignorance.

Take side-channel attacks for example. A timing attack is something programmers from the 60’s and 70’s would not have taken into account when writing their hashing algorithms. And speaking of hashing, what hashing algorithms were available back then? CRC32 or something similar? What about salting? You get the idea.

Not to mention that legacy operating systems don’t get security updates. Let’s assume that DOS is secure (which it definitely isn’t), but if that statement were correct, would it apply to Windows XP as well?

All I’m saying is that the article is dead wrong. As software developers in this century, we’ve come a long way. We’ve developed security best practices, written libraries and frameworks, and come up with mitigations for a lot of these security vulnerabilities. These solutions are something that closed-source legacy systems (and anything without active maintenance) would never benefit from.

Shit. Don’t give them ideas

And said trick ends when an attacker manages to socially-engineer their way in. (But maybe they’ll drop floppies instead of flash drives around the block this time)

Legacy hardware and operating systems are battle tested, having been extensively probed and patched during their heyday. The same can be said for software written for these platforms – they have been refined to the point that they can execute their intended tasks without incident. If it is ain't broke, don't fix it. One could also argue that dated platforms are less likely to be targeted by modern cybercriminals. Learning the ins and outs of a legacy system does not make sense when there are so few targets still using them. A hacker would be far better off to master something newer that millions of systems still use.

Tell me you know nothing about cybersecurity without telling me you know nothing about cybersecurity. Wtf is this drivel?

I loved Clonk back in the day. Discovered it from the falling sand craze a long time ago and I still have fond memories of it.