[-] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

I specifically quoted the part that I considered bad faith. I am OK with you thinking I am an apologist. I don't consider it bad faith (although I consider it wrong). What was bad faith was purposefully misinterpreting a sentence that was in a clear context so that you could use it for that patronizing statement.

This was a objectively true from my viewpoint

Nothing to say, it just sounds ironic to me. Again, I have no problem with your subjective judgment.

He was simply wrong for this statement.

And I respect your opinion.

that did more harm than good.

Now we ended up in an argument that has to do with result? I have never said that it was a good move. That it benefit the company or anything like that. What argument are you trying to challenge? I am judging the action based on my own morality, not based on whether it benefit him or his company.

You are just learning, and pointing out your own words is not bad faith

Strike two. Go re-read the sentence. I said that I didn't know anything about him before this debacle and that I ended up learning about him whole informing myself about it. For your convenience I will quote my own words:

I actually can't care less about him, and I barely know anything about him. My involvement is very limited to this case, and that is because wanting to understand inevitably forced me to learn certain things and inform myself.

This behavior (patronizing, intentionally misunderstanding other person sentences) for me is clearly a demonstration of bad faith. As usual, your accusation of bad faith did not specify any reason or quoted any part and i challenge you to do that.

Not that it matters to you, but next similar behavior and I will block you and move on.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

I agree with you on the principle. In this case I disagree with the premise. Years of actions I think easily out weight that tweet. If that's the only reason to be suspicious, then I don't think it's warranted.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

I start to perceive a pinch of bad faith, and an excessive amount of paternalism. Your arguments are mostly ad hominem, so far you didn't produce much coherent criticism of ideas.

Anyway, you seem to have missed the point that understanding that "leaders" (BTW, you seem to use this term seriously like if we were on LinkedIn) keep their mouth shut is different from understanding my (ours) role into this dynamic.

I don't need any proof, that was just an example, from a very limited sample of my life which is this alias and that blog. I have nothing to prove or anything to defend from baseless accusations of a random internet person with lacking knowledge (about myself, which I hope you will agree).

You state yourself you are just learning about this which is very clear.

Here is the bad faith I was talking about. A sentence which clearly is out of context used for a very patronizing ad hominem.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

I felt that was really uncalled for. The whole post elaborates quite a lot in thousands of words, and I feel like your summary is not really accurate. Unfortunately, I have no way to debate accusations that follow a circular logic, so I won't attempt to do so.

Otherwise please keep that shit to yourself and keep it out of your business if you ever want my money.

I reiterate that I find curious that you seem to prefer ignorance of those positions, as if the reality is suddenly better if you don't know a problem exists. You would rather pay for Proton not knowing that Andy Yen thinks what he thinks than having more information so that you can choose to stop paying. Obviously just an example, same thing applies to the WaPo or Tesla, or any other similar case.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

The problem is that those arguments are not falsifiable. If not one, but two completely reasonable explanation cannot convince you of someone motivations, nothing can. However, I don't care if Musk did or did not a Nazi salute. His actions speak much louder (in a bad sense) than the aesthetic that he decides to adopt. Proton donation pattern for example would be a strong indicator to measure intentions.

but it was a wildly tone deaf one if so

Maybe. But also maybe people are allowed to have different cultural references, and in a global context (i.e., the internet) we should expect diversity. I - for example - had never heard of this 88 thing, and I would definitely not think about it at all the next time I create a username, and I didn't think it when I went to a barber shop that has that number in the name. Likewise, I wouldn't call anybody writing "Merry Xmas" tone deaf for missing the reference to the X MAS of infamous history (and just recently in the news). For some people it's apparently impossible to see their culture as non-universal (at the cost of sounding stereotypical, folks from US have particularly this problem after decades of cultural hegemony).

for a party that’s steeped in all of the same memetic game playing, you cant ignore the dog whistles

This all happened before Musk/Bannon salute. Just to specify it.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

(Re)Posting and not engaging with the community is not free publicity, is bad publicity. They don't have the resources (according to them) do to the latter, and therefore they choose not to do the former.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Security is hardly a binary property.

Given you mention the specific technical setup, I would say yes - that is secure against most risks relevant for most people.

At least, it's totally fine according to my own threat model, where I looked specifically at broswer-based encryption vs "manual" encryption (I.e. using PGP tools locally).

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Yep, I like bunny in fact. It didn't have all the features I needed back then, but it's a very good product, I heard very good things.

I also agree about the pricing. I ended up not using desec.io, but if I did, I would have probably set a 1-2 Euros recurring donation, as I feel that's a totally acceptable price.

As for why people use GoDaddy well... I feel personally attacked as that's exactly how I ended up there, when I didn't know better.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

cognito auth

But then at that point you are already vendor-locked, right? At that point, running on bare ec2 instances and taking more control in your hands (vs using even more AWS-specific services) is going to help very little, when your whole user management is now tied to a specific provider.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

This post must be fun with that one... 150+ instances in various contexts of "cloud".

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I am afraid that a lot depends on cultural context of the whole society. I don't think the context is fertile for men's activism for rights. The groups that exist are almost exclusively misogynist and conservative. I believe that a movement, even if really focused on men's issues from a general perspective (I.e. not misogynistic) would be received very poorly, will fail to develop solidarity with other groups and would be accused of stealing space to them.

Frankly, I am not convinced at all that each demographic should fight their own battles, I believe in better analyzed demands that will merge under the same front gay rights, women's rights, men's rights and so on.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

I have seen this post and decided to respond via a separate blog post. https://loudwhisper.me/blog/containers-isolation/

The short answer is that yes, they do. And yes lowering the privileges of the user helps in avoiding container escapes, which basically makes the other advantages for containers valid. You can, however, achieve the same using (relatively obscure, imho) systemd settings, running with flatpak etc. Namespaces + Cgroups + Seccomp + Capabilities = better security. Containers make it easy to use all of the above.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

loudwhisper

0 post score
0 comment score
joined 2 years ago