BillyClark

This is pretty close to how some witchcraft was invented. “Why do you have a broom under your bed sheets?”

If Google was updating Wikipedia and falsely accusing somebody of sex crimes on their Wikipedia pages, I think you could expect that Google would get sued in that situation, as well. It’s really about the source of the information.

I always thought the Bynars did a good job making Minuet believable on Law & Order.

Also, if they were powering the holodeck with coal generators, the crew might be complaining about the fumes making the Enterprise unlivable.

In 2020, the pedestrian traffic changed from commuting to lots of people going out on daily walks, often in areas that aren’t set up for pedestrians. I’m guessing that’s a contributing factor.

I did only say that I thought sandboxing was “a big part of the solution.”

IIRC, PBF comics start out as physical paintings.

The only good thing about Trump taking advice from Harp is that he’s listening to anybody at all. We’ve all seen what happens when Trump tries to think for himself. He just prattles on about windmills killing whales and whether he’d rather be in the water with batteries or sharks and other completely brain dead shit.

So, the way I see it, there are three layers of managing security for sandboxes. There is the developer. There is the distribution system. And then, there is the user.

Flathub gives warnings at the top of each app’s page. Ideally, they’d block publishing of apps that need a dangerous amount of permission, rather than just warning the user, but I understand why they don’t. I think they need like a flatpak secure mode that removes dangerous settings when installing a flatpak, and then they add to the top of their pages which apps don’t work with their safe installs.

I think then, that the future of flatpak security could evolve to alleviate the problems you mentioned. For one, as flatpak adoption increases, developers will end up at least looking at their flathub pages and have a desire to reduce those warnings.

Because right now, too much burden is placed on the user. I’m hoping that the technology will evolve to put all of the burden on the developer and the distribution system.

Yeah, I thought the solution was just to let the cat sleep there.

In some versions of Star Trek, I’m sure they’ve said that the first few presses somebody makes on a console is them logging in.

The systems were designed similar to military installations contemporary to when they were written, with the expectation that unauthorized people were not supposed to have access to certain areas in the first place.

Of course, now it seems stupid. My car has more security just using my phone as the key. They could easily have used their badges as credentials at the very least. Realistically, with their tech, the computer should just know everybody’s identities and everybody’s locations at all times, even without badges, and should be able to control access using that information.

But just imagine if they used that sort of tech. Every time somebody was in a prison cell, the computer would be analyzing what they were doing, and alert security the moment they started trying to break out, for example. So many episodes would end before they started.

I think a big part of the solution of this entire problem is some form of sandboxing. That way, if one of your sandboxes gets a virus, it won’t have access to information that is outside of that sandbox, and you can delete the virus by deleting the sandbox. At least in Linux, when you install something as a flatpak, it’s automatically in a sandbox. Another example is that some game launchers can automatically launch games in their own sandbox.

Of course, then you have the issue that certain programs have access to tons of personal data and also get used all over the place, like web browsers. Even if you install those in sandboxes, I’m not sure how you can protect yourself, apart from really locking it down and then vigilantly cleaning the directories that they can see. But that’s a lot of extra work. A good solution would be more automatic.

Maybe “apples to apples” is a poor choice of words, because you completely misunderstood what I meant by it, which is really the whole point of choosing which words to use. That’s on me, but you did completely misunderstand, so I feel inclined to explain.

When they said, “Corporation-owned robots have more rights than people it seems,” it seemed to me that they were basically saying something obviously incorrect for the humor of it. They never intended to compare actual human rights with apparent robot rights.

By “apples to apples,” I meant, “Let’s actually tangibly compare the rights of a robot in that situation with the rights of a human in the same situation. Not the rights of a robot compared with the idea of diminishing human rights.”

Really, the stupidest part of this in my book is a very bad reaction to my comment that simply stated the plain truth. If a lady on a sidewalk is blocking people in wheelchairs from passing, then that person will likely be arrested as soon as the police can show up, so obviously people have more rights than robots in this situation.

Edit: For clarity, the reason I brought up wheelchairs is that the robot cannot leave the sidewalk, so I wanted the human version of that.

I understand where you’re coming from, but surely if you compare apples with apples and substitute a human for the robot, like the professor wasn’t letting people in a wheelchairs get past, the response would have been quicker and more severe.

I once won tickets to see a variety show in Vegas, and it had topless women chorus line dancing between acts. If you had asked me before then whether I’d prefer a variety show with topless women or without, I’d have said, “With, please.” But that would have been wrong.

I swear, they all had the same desperate fake smile as Katie Zacharia in that picture, and they all were pushing out their chests with their bolt-on tits as hard as they could. I remarked to my date that all of the dancers seemed extremely motivated to display the most fake parts of their bodies, as I’m guessing their teeth were all fake, too.

It was all extremely off-putting, like they were all victims of human trafficking. I admit I couldn’t stop looking, either. It was sort of like looking at a car crash if all the victims had their fake tits out.

On the other hand, the variety act itself was extremely entertaining.

But anyways, based on Katie Zacharia’s smile in that picture, I can’t help but remember that very odd experience. One of the reasons I don’t like Vegas.

Furniture-wise, what are we even looking at, though?

I think I see a dresser on the left and a green couch on the bottom right that appears to be pointed at a randomly placed refrigerator. Maybe it’s a bed, but I think the shape is more like a couch. So, that’s furniture from a bedroom, a living room, and a kitchen, all in one room.

Even for a studio apartment, this would be a very weird arrangement of furniture.

“Come, sit on this couch so we can stare at my refrigerator.”

I’ve never been to Singapore, but I think vending machines should be common enough there that they wouldn’t mistranslate it as ATM.

“Would you still love me if I was a worm?”

“How large of a worm, exactly?”

I know, fuck Rowling and all that, but let’s talk about whether this could happen in the HP universe. It couldn’t. Thank you for your attention.

Remember their first lesson on Wingardium Leviosa and how important pronunciation and wand control was? It basically isn’t supposed to work if you mispronounce it, and the pronunciation is pretty strict. Also, as we saw from The Half Blood Prince, for dark magic, you really have to cast the spell with intention.

If I were the killer in that situation, not that I ever would be, I would actually want to be given a harsher sentence than that. Because what we just witnessed in that video is the creation of a vigilante. When the government won’t seek justice for people whose lives are completely ruined, those people will seek justice themselves, and I don’t want to receive that sort of justice.