c00001a5.bsky.social
37 posts
4 followers
59 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
OCaml seems like a decent functional language, why does it freak you out? Anything worth noting?
comment in response to
post
bruh, when this country is literally tearing itself apart into pieces and the whole thing falls apart, remember your comment. It was a stunt after all, China had no plans to manipulate American society into chaos. What a shame, with voters like this, who needs foreign enemies.
comment in response to
post
You're right on that, but who started it matters after a truce when you negotiate not during battle. Right now, all that matters is not losing, or at least preventing harm to America as a country and to the American people. The preservation of the union must trump most other concerns.
comment in response to
post
how about we don't talk about Taiwan? It's always a bad idea to negotiate with an enemy that is actively attacking you. Let's instead talk about how to prepare for a potential war with China, or how to get China to stop being hostile? First step: permit US social media, and the US will allow Tiktok.
comment in response to
post
that might be a nice foreign policy, I don't want to debate that. But the facts as they are today is that China is a cold-war enemy of the US and is working to destabilize america. Unless you share that sentiment, why would you oppose this?
comment in response to
post
America's enemies won't spare you because of your political beliefs, they want your destruction all the same. America's economic power, foreign interests and influences are opposed to China's. Both countries anticipate an actual war within a decade over Taiwan. Now let's talk about tiktok lol.
comment in response to
post
I'm not conservative, this measure has bi-partisan support. Any government's first and primary responsibility is the safety and security of its people. This has nothing to do markets, economics or partisan politics. This is about China being in a cold war with the west.
comment in response to
post
@theintercept.com having rules crafted by elected legislators doesn't mean authoritarianism. The government bans all sorts of websites, this isn't new. Russia & China's strategy of causing social tension and divisions in American society is well publicized and studied. Where is your journalism?
comment in response to
post
all malicious .exe's start with .MZ, why does Mark hate everyone??
comment in response to
post
@azeria-labs.com such a huge fan of your work, please write more. Although I'm disappointed with not being able to purchase a copy of your "red fox" book, will there be a reprint soon? used books?
comment in response to
post
for an opinionated definition of "more evasive" sure.
comment in response to
post
Nah, it is crazier than that. You gotta know people. Some places you gotta have certs, others want a pretty gh repo, a personal site, prove that you can work outside of work hours, and more. Breaking into infosec is Hard with a capital H! Don't let survivor's bias make you downplay others' struggle.
comment in response to
post
WPAD is still a thing, proxies terminate https. HSTS works when your first visit isn't over the public wifi; plenty of very important sites don't use HSTS. Even if HSTS was perfect, you're assuming users won't install malicious extensions or download malware at the suggestion of the evilwifi.
comment in response to
post
One reason it is hard to get done in the US is the comparison with EU. Forget how other countries do it, America leads, we don't follow. we can do better than them by crafting a solution tailor-made to our 51-countries-in-a-trenchcoat patchwork.We can solve things like long wait times others haven't
comment in response to
post
Don't quit your day job to become a bot-hunter on bluesky.
comment in response to
post
bruh, what do you got against me, is it because you don't understand what the error code in my @ means? I don't like to post much because it isn't good for mental health dealing with certain types of people or getting caught up in it all. You didn't uncover anything "brian smith"
comment in response to
post
wow you're so clever and original! your behavior and the prevalent tendency of others to find fault on the person making the argument instead of the argument itself is intellectual laziness and is also at the core of so many social ailments. Even if I were a bot how would that negate anything I said
comment in response to
post
I like how you called me comrade to imply I'm a communist because I want Americans better off.
It is however my patriotic view that people who relish cruelty towards their fellow Americans should consider a change of country. If you are such a person, I don't consider you an American at all.
comment in response to
post
The solution to American health care, is difficult but simple. Tax the public (income, property, sales, corporate and more) and directly subsidize health-care (including medschool costs) for everyone and regulate cost of health care. The economics works out quite well, with cost savings.
comment in response to
post
It is ultimately the fault of the American public for wanting an insurance based system. To me, this is comparable to needing "fire insurance" for the fire department to put out the fire burning down your house, and not only that, said insurance's cost depends on the generosity of your employer.
comment in response to
post
Out of all businesses, they are the one business that shouldn't be? Health R&D and pharma should be for profit, but the organizations that actually treat people shouldn't be.
comment in response to
post
sorry, I meant within a timescale of like centuries. Like in pre-ww2 era, the US and UK governments opened paper mail for inspection. book-code was also invented many centuries prior because regular messages were subject to interception.
comment in response to
post
But can we agree that "those in power" not being privy to the conversations of normal people is a new thing? it sounds like a good thing from what I'm reading in this thread. But there will always be "terrorists" and "think of the children" arguments with some legitimate reasoning behind them.
comment in response to
post
Thanks for explaining it. I was just trying to understand the nuanced viewpoints behind these arguments, instead of blindly accepting them without questioning.
comment in response to
post
I can agree with what you're saying to the most part. But are we saying here something like "let's not build a bridge because some day the people crossing it will become bad"?
I am not supporting any view, just being critical for the sake of arriving at the right conclusion.
comment in response to
post
I'm sure the government of every country would claim they're the good guys. isn't it up to the people, politicians and soldiers to sort that out? of course, if those governments are in opposition to my own, I would gladly call them the bad guys, but I expect our soldiers to take care of that.
comment in response to
post
Re: e2ee backdoor, are you saying "you can't" or "you shouldn't"? because technically, it is possible, you don't even have to backdoor the protocol, you can backdoor clients. What is the overlap between people who need true e2ee and who might get harmed by non-gov entities accessing said backdoor?
comment in response to
post
Can you follow me so people will think you're endorsing me? 😂
comment in response to
post
idk, sounds like hashtags might help or maybe posts that aren't meant for the public at large shouldn't be made on a publicly visible channel. I get the need to talk to just your tribe though, forums were great for that, private subreddits are great for that now as well.
comment in response to
post
To add to that, I don't mean tolerate intolerable points of views, what I mean is tolerate people who who hold intolerable opinions, so long as they continue to engage in good faith. What you are doing now engaging with me is an excellent example of what I mean.
comment in response to
post
Social media is our public square. By design, democracy can only function when strangers are able to engage in civil discourse. If you can't even engage with people you vehemently disagree with, then how can democracy function? This is exactly how Trump won the election (with Elon's help) btw.
comment in response to
post
it is indeed **gestures at everything going on**
Russian psyops has taken over all these conversations, and their desired outcome is partly this.
comment in response to
post
yeah, because I disagree that debate is futile. y'all are literally giving up on peace and democracy like it's some joke. Get real! I prefer debates over bullets, how about you?
comment in response to
post
my mental model aside, empires rise and fall all the time throughout history. The US's military capability can't be matched by adversaries right now, but if it collapses from the inside, there won't be any need for that. The world reserve can't rely on the currency of a country in shambles either.
comment in response to
post
Yes, so long as the injustice and inequality does not warrant the death of tens of millions in the US and more globally, and the ruin of our country. that doesn't exactly result in justice and equality right? A global order led by China and Russia isn't great for the world either.
comment in response to
post
look at it this way: peace and unity == "not war and instability". I sincerely believe some of this anti-unity messaging is at least seeded by America's enemies.
No, I don't want unity with Nazis, but I also don't want a civil war if that makes sense.
comment in response to
post
In your opinion, which has a higher priority in democracy, peace & unity or achieving a better and more correct outcome for all?
Things like the electoral college and a bi-cameral congress exist because peace & unity are the higher priority, even when irrational and incorrect.