If you're going to censor something, use an opaque black shape. These half-ass censorship attempts are ridiculous.
unhrpetby
joined 1 month ago
True.
Though, you are probably going to have a much easier time implementing a change to your code that is present in a company's published code, than you would trying to reverse-engineer a binary.
Sharing of the code I would consider "giving back" in it of itself.
Its important to highlight the type of don't care.
There is not caring while having a full understanding of the topic, and there is not caring while being ignorant.
Most people fall into the latter camp. Privacy enthusiasts consistently say "Normal people don't care about privacy" but I have yet to see them acknowledge that most people don't know what you know.
Computer privacy? How should I care if I don't even understand how a computer works, privilege levels, the power an operating system has?
Educating people about this is an important step. If we just give up on ignorant people, we are losing out on people who are just not informed.
We have the receipts. We don't need to run the experiment again. We know, unequivocally, that if we ask people to compromise on something that they know is deeply immoral, we will lose.
People have proposed multiple reasons why the Democrats lost. This is one. Them "continuing to play gender politics" is another.
A simple "They kept supporting isreal + they lost = they lost because of supporting isreal" lacks evidence. I believe this is rather complex.
One could make similar statements (and some do), about voting for the democrats over a better farther-left party. The defenders of voting Democrat would likely tell you the same thing: "Its our only chance at winning."
Are you voting for genocide if you compromise and vote for the Democrats? Or are you merely making the best of a broken system?
You decide.
I see value in being uncompromising (look at Richard Stallman in Free Software). I also see value in giving a little in the right areas for a net gain.
I don't think McBride thinks that this is the ultimatum given at the moment (100% vs 50% of trans people die), that would explain why she is willing to compromise.
If she did see it that way, she would probably do the same as you.
Her wanting to compromise at this moment does not mean she would compromise in the worst of moments.
That sentence isn't making sense to me.
She's not saying anything negative about human rights at all. She's saying that to get what we want (human rights), the path forward is one not so simple that we can just support it unconditionally, "excommunicating"[1] those not in lock-step with our ideas, and get everything we want.
You may shoot for the stars, and get nothing. Or you may shoot for a more reasonable goal and make meaningful progress.
[1]: See the original thread comment. Nazi scum? Is that directed at the trans rep who wants to help? This is a prime example of something I would consider not helpful to the cause.
I don't think she's saying this because she prefers it, but rather because she sees it is necessary.
“If, for instance, we want to have a majoritarian coalition — not just electorally, but specifically on issues around trans rights — that, by necessity, is going to have to include people who have a range of thoughts,” McBride continued.
She is clearly arguing that its more effective to be open to a range of ideas than to not so.
“A binary choice between being all-on or all-off is not constructive for anyone,” she said. “It impedes the very needed path toward winning electorally, winning hearts and minds, and, most importantly, winning progress.”
Politics is a strategic war. Its very simple to be 100%, non-compromising, in-support of something. But is that the most effective path forward?
I don't think she's saying this because she prefers it, but rather because she sees it is necessary.
“If, for instance, we want to have a majoritarian coalition — not just electorally, but specifically on issues around trans rights — that, by necessity, is going to have to include people who have a range of thoughts,” McBride continued.
She is clearly arguing that its more effective to be open to a range of ideas than to not so.
“A binary choice between being all-on or all-off is not constructive for anyone,” she said. “It impedes the very needed path toward winning electorally, winning hearts and minds, and, most importantly, winning progress.”
It can be done if you mess with the initramfs.
The kernel starts everything else by unpacking an archive containing a minimal environment to set stuff up for later. Such as loading needed kernel modules, decrypting your drive, etc. It then launches, by default, the /init program (mines a shell script).
That program is PID 1. If it dies, your kernel will panic.
After it finishes setup, it execs your actual /sbin/init. These means it dies, and that program (systemd, openrc, dinit, runit, etc) becomes PID 1. If an issue happens, both could fail to execute and the kernel will loop forever.
These applications likely know they can get away with it, as people classify them as "too important" to uninstall.
The solution is to make them wrong: To uninstall. Who woulda thunk.
Depends on the environment surrounding the door, as well as the environment surrounding the computer.
Some people simply care less about their computer security. The debate stops there. Security operates on a foundation of what you want to secure.
By comparing two environments of someone's life you know little about, you are commenting from ignorance.