this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2023
888 points (99.9% liked)
196
16436 readers
1954 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I would hope if she was she would have a seperate not-gaming Laptop for work.
Would be more professional, but shes Trumps lawyer so I guess there is not much to expect in the way of professionalism.
What exactly is the problem here? What's wrong with using a gaming laptop for work?
Well either she is unneccesarily using a gaming Laptop for non-gaming.
Or she uses her private gaming laptop for work and doesnt separate between those two spheres, which is unprofessional and potentially dangerous in regards to privacy security.
I don't see why this would be an issue, it's a computer after all.
Using her own machine for sensitive work like that, on the other hand, I do see the point. Unless there is some sort of dual boot setup involved.
If she bought a gaming laptop specifically for work (this is the way you end up with a gaming laptop that’s not also your personal laptop) then it’s a silly, unnecessary, ill suited decision. There are other laptops with better battery life, cheaper, lighter, etc etc etc…. That fit the lawyer usecase better. Why would a lawyer buy a gaming laptop to lawyer?
IANAL but I don’t think you need discrete graphics for lawyer applications. But who knows, maybe she’s running an ML model locally to tell her what to do.
Well, no, I think you’re missing the point.
There’s really no reason for a lawyer to be carrying a huge gaming laptop as their daily driver. There’s no advantage to it over an ultrabook, MBP, or any high-end productivity laptop (that’s probably in a lower price bracket to boot).
Now, if they do game on it, and also use it for work, that speaks to very poor IT security practice. Sensitive/valuable client data, especially for such a high-profile case, shouldn’t be on the same system that is built for gaming. The main reason being that games aren’t designed to be run on secure systems. So many of them arbitrarily require admin rights to perform properly, which means that this lawyer would have to have local admin privileges to be able to use them.
Giving a non-technical user admin privileges to a system that contains sensitive data for a high-profile client is absolutely a recipe for disaster. That system needs to be locked the fuck down. Not running Baldurs Gate during recess.
Now, perhaps, there’s a logical reason. Maybe her practice has a really good IT team and they’ve been able to effectively set up a good, secure BYOD environment. I’d still question this lawyers judgement in their professional image to select an RGB gaming laptop for their work. To me, this is no different than a shady personal injury lawyer that features their trashy Hummer H2 in every commercial, which exclusively airs during reruns of Jerry Springer.
You bought it specifically only to watch tv on? Seems like a waste of money.
Well do you know if that lady bought it only for use in court?
Jesus, people drawing conclusions from a still image. It could have been a gift? Maybe it's not even her laptop? Maybe she has so much money that she wanted it for the rgb? Maybe she does video editing as a hobbie? Maybe she uses it for traveling for gaming and work, because NOONE brings one laptop for gaming and one for work when travelling.
Tell me more about what she does after work is over, you seem to know...
It’s totally possible that she of her own informed mind made the best choice for her use case.
You make that claim, but I literally traveled with my personal and professional laptops on multiple occasions. Work policy is pretty strict on acceptable use of the work laptop, despite it being specced for running light ML tasks, and capable of gaming.
The choice of gaming laptop for suit wearing professional use just seems really odd. I’ll admit that if a guy did it, I’d have a slightly different first take… and that’d be to assume he was a gamer, and think “bro brought his fucking gaming machine to court”. And if you wanna call me out on that assumption, I’ll happily go out and double check my pre-conceived notions with statistics about pc gamers. I could be wrong.
Um, woman with a ROG here. 😁 I do not bring it with me to defend high profile clients in court, though.
I understand, but my point is why people are being so judgmental and prejudice about it? Maybe that's her actual working laptop, I've seen companies indulging their best workers with stuff like that.
Even if it's an odd choice to bring to court, it's still just a laptop, it's not like she decided to go to court in bermudas.
Hopefully, people are just taking liberties to shit talk someone they dislike for reasons unrelated to the shit talking.
Even in the worst case that it’s all Misogynistic, well… at least the attacks aren’t on her womanhood or some other protected class.
In Texas communities people were making fun of Greg Abbotts handicap, and thought that was ok because he’s a horrible excuse for a human. But, disability is a protected class. It’s a thing we agree shouldn’t be used against someone.
And I just don’t see the same problem with ridiculing someone for being a gaming laptop wielding lawyer.
I do the same thing, but it’s my home desktop. For me the big thing here isn’t about using your gaming computer for work it’s using it for work as a lawyer. There are two components to this: first law requires a degree of privacy and security that not having a separate computer for work demonstrates a habit of lack of security, second is that bringing an rgb laptop to a courtroom as a defense lawyer is akin to wearing jeans and a tshirt to court as a defense lawyer, it shouldn’t be a problem but judges tend to really not like that sort of thing and so it demonstrates a lack of professionalism in a job where professionalism impacts your performance
nothing (besides a waste) unless it means you are using your work laptop to game.
There are plenty of reasons besides gaming to have a laptop with a dedicated GPU. There isn’t really many low end professional options, they start over $2k. 3D modelling, video rendering, ML and a bunch of other professional uses are significantly improved with dedicated hardware.
Who knows, maybe she’s running LLaMA on it locally so no one catches her using AI to write her rebuttals.
Why is this a bad thing? Why would you have separate computers, when you can have one good one?
Security issues. It's standard security policy for most companies to separate private and work.
So have a drive for work and one for play. Bill the laptop to work but spec it for what you want at home.
Not even that. She could be dual booting windows with windows on two separate encrypted partitions. There's going to be someone at work who knows how to set it up.
And why can't she know how to set that up if she chooses? Because she's a girl? You people are gross. If you want to criticize her for something, let it be for representing Trump in the first place.
No, she can't know it because she is a lawyer that represents Trump. Why did you though we have a problem with her gender?
She's clearly too young to have her own practice. Whatever firm she works for placed her on his case. Her intelligence cannot be defined by the client she represents. She's smart enough to pass the bar. I'd wager she's also smart enough not to hand her personal laptop to some neckbeard to set up for her. It's highly questionable at this point whether Trump can even get a firm big enough to have in house IT to work for him.
Nothing to do with their sexual identity or gender. It's the fact that the average person doesn't know how to do it. Most people working in a company stuff have IT that sets things up for them. If they can do it themselves, then hell, that's great and I'm happy for them. But I wouldn't assume anything because of someone's gender or sexual identity. I think that's silly.
If you care for a personal example, the company I work for has IT which give us work phones. The IT department set the phones up themselves. Because of the way the phone has been set up, there's incredibly little that can go tits up and there's a lot of security built in (no admin, enforced long passwords, probably more that I'm forgetting).
I'm more than capable of setting up my phone and having it be secure myself without IT doing it. Maybe she can too. Is it a usual thing for IT to thing up in a business setting, (unless you're a programmer) probably.
Even if she works for a firm, which is likely as she looks a bit young to own her own practice, they did not provide that laptop. That is clearly hers. And unless they are a fairly large law firm, they do not have a dedicated IT guy, let alone department. I'd bet Trump would be hard pressed to get a large firm to work for him, given his reputation.
I mean, this is all speculation. How can you be sure that she couldn't just request that laptop? I don't know the circumstances.
As far as institutions go, there's even fairly small ones that have at least 1 person who's job is IT, not to mention it is also possible to outsource that position entirely.
I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong about this entire situation but that doesn't make me a sexist like you implied :/
This can slow a hacker down, but still a bad bad bad security practice.
How so? If you have 2 partitions encrypted separately with, say, Veracrypt, the worst thing the infected partition could do is copy the other encrypted partition. Unless I'm missing something?
You can download a copy of the encrypted partition and attempt to crack it locally.
Which depending on how deep your cascade encryption goes can require a huge amount of computation. If you're a small business owner running a restaurant or a student, that's plenty of security. If you're the lawyer for a former POTUS in a history-defining trial that might decide the future of the entire planet, I hope to God you're not relying on that encryption.
Then again it might be the same dirt that foreign intelligence already has on Trump, so maybe it doesn't matter either way.
My friend, I hope you realise that cracking a Veracrypt partition is going to take longer than the heat death of the universe even if we use every computer ever produced. It's not feasible to crack a partition with brute force. The one way to break it is if they have some password lists or something.
I've actually been thinking about this. Another very hard but possible way that I can think could work would be to take the targeted partition in its entirety, then alter the boot process in such a way where the user is tricked into producing their password at boot to the encrypted partition. The password would then be sent over the air to the attacker where they can simply decrypt the partition. I'm not sure what that would entail though.
Battery life propably