gattsuru
1yr ago
The problem with turing machines is that pretty much everything becomes equivalent at high enough levels of generality. Windows EXEs (and DLLs) have a specific format that make it impossible to load an empty or (most) malformed files, but if the surrounding format is correct enough you can absolutely have it followed by a bunch of nonsensical instructions and memory locations -- there is a checksum, but (infamously), it isn't actually mandatory to load or run.
Worse, there's no rule that your executable is the only place that such instructions can come from, and few architectures try. Even in Harvard architectures like Atmels or PICs, there are specific instructions to transfer from the data bus into the program and vice versa. Modern operating systems on von Neumann architectures try to stop you from doing so by accident, by setting memory pages as either instruction or data, and in modern Windows machines further isolating data instructions with DEP, but it's ultimately just a set of flags.
There are arguments against doing this, in favor of having a having your base program load from more conventional configuration files with a strict format (eg JSON), or even having a very limited programming language that your core driver then 'runs'. They have some tradeoffs! But ultimately the problem is a lot more boring: in each case, you have to be able to recognize and respond to a corrupt file. And that's a solved problem! But you have to recognize it.
gattsuru
1yr ago
I'm not sure what you're using to support that. Damore's been working for some unnamed startup in Austin since 2018, according to his LinkedIn page, and it doesn't even look like a lead (or single-digit-number) position. That looks a lot more like 'right-leaning tech company' than fuck you money.
gattsuru
1yr ago
People say that, but there are parts of the US with very broad restrictions on what at-will employees can be fired for (California), or do not have a default assumption of at-will employment (Montana), and they are not especially resistant to cancel culture. Indeed, many cases the labor protections are what demands firing of some righties.
gattsuru
1yr ago
'Proven' is hard, but "One doctor’s campaign to stop a covid-19 vaccine being rushed through before Election Day" comes to mind every time people start drawing really complex theories for the surge in vaccine skepticism on the right. The weird last-minute process change to drop the 32-sample threshold is less well-known, but it's... hard to see the daylight for the official justification.
gattsuru
1yr ago
Yeah, the paranoid option is that there was some serious zero-day that they were trying to react against, it worked fine on the development environment, and they made a tradeoff of the risk of this sort of incident against not pushing the big red button.
But being derpy is always an option.
gattsuru
1yr ago
It's not clear how much of it's Trump (and co's) doing, but it's worth noticing how different the current GOP platform is on internal culture war stuff than the 2016 one. There's still red meat, most overtly on trans stuff and school vouchers, but it's a very long cry from wanting Windsor overturned. And even the trans stuff is relatively restrained (if, imo, sometimes bad policy!) by the standards of a document that normally tends to be written by the hardest social cons
He's a little more partisan, charitably because of things like Baude/Paulsen, less charitably having seen a niche for Not-Obviously-Crazy Guy Providing Trump Legal Foundation. But that's kinda a different frustration.
I'll use this piece as an example. It's not wrong (uh, mostly; the aside about no one following Barrett on or off the court is especially lackluster as a contrast to Thomas), or even particularly partisan (uh, mostly; the swipes and 'compliment' at Sotomayor).
But break out the argument in reverse. Blackman wants to persuade you that "Even if an erroneous precedent cannot be overruled, courts should isolate the damage, and decline to extend it to new circumstances." Literally the subhead and closing argument. That's not an unreasonable thing to say! What's the buildup to it?
- Robinson was peak Warren Court activism.
- Thomas wanted to overrule Robinson.
- The majority said that this case was not implicated by Robinson.
- The plaintiffs wanted to extend Robinson.
- The majority said they don't want to.
These are reasonable as summaries of the case, even if some progressives would want to emphasize different parts instead. They slot very nicely around his argument. They're also just not evidence for or against that argument; at most, the last point is just an example of a court doing that.
If Blackman was trying to present a story of the case, this would be compelling, but he's not. It'd be fine if he was providing advocacy as a purely normative matter, but he's not really doing that, either. He's telling you that you (or the courts) should do all these things, but every point on his list could come back with a time machine and a goatee and turn out to have happened the opposite way, and he'd still believe and tell you the same conclusion. These bullet points are not evidence; they're part of a story he's putting together such that the conclusion fits. It makes sense, if you already believe him, but if you don't there's absolutely nothing here that can or should change your mind.
He doesn't always fall this way -- he links to a (rarely downloaded) paper he wrote on the topic that is... not great, but at least winks underlying facts, this is a pretty direct normative argument, this is extremely bound to specific facts. It's not even always bad when he does this sort of narrative-writing framework-shifting stuff.
But it's something he's doing, in ways that aren't visible to many readers (myself included not that long ago!), where that invisibility seems likely to be bad for many of his readers.
gattsuru
1yr ago
To be fair, I'm not sure he believes it.
There's a point, here, if he did. There's a (neurotically) strong libertarian argument that goes something like a) Law is enforced at the barrel of a gun, b) every law has to have a punishment against violators to be meaningfully enforced, and no matter how many layers deep you try to bury the punishment it either boils down to a stern talk or serious harm and usually the latter, and c) no system of punishment will be clear from abuse or corruption, and our system is particularly bad. Every small tax means some fraction of a person strangled, every locked building or stupid regulatory rule means some fraction of someone getting shot by the feds, banning drugs pushes people to less safe drugs from less trustworthy sources that fry their brains, prison sentences mean rape (and 'consensual' sex that isn't), so on. That doesn't make every law automatically invalid -- sometimes people need shooting, and sometimes even shooting people that don't really deserve it is worth the cost -- but it resists the urge to flinch away with caveats about how all these problems would go away if people Would Just comply, or if only the police behaved better, or only the fuehrer knew, knowing that they never will.
But White has never made those arguments. Even in Garner's case, which is about as sympathetic to his positions are possible, it was always just that the Cops Were Bad. And he can't, because he wants to have the power of the state at hand for too many trivial things.
Okay, well, there's a steelman where even if White doesn't believe it for everything else, Immigration Is Genuinely Different; enforcement is unusually difficult, and no small number of immigrants are, if not legally refugees, at least fleeing from poverty in countries with high rates of violent crime. But White's not making that argument, either, here. It's that his enemies, the ones here, want to do these awful things themselves, and White doesn't even try to Pepe Silvia a how, nevermind a why, into place.
That's not the point of the whole mess. If you somehow pinned him down (without getting blocked) he'd probably point to the Flores homicides, or less charitably the alleged ICE eugenics, but there's reason he doesn't point to them or anything else here.
It's like trying to disprove that "jailers could not possibly be so incompetent, cruel, or indifferent as to let such a high-profile prisoner commit suicide" by providing thirty-five really compelling examples of deaths or near-deaths in jails and prisons, until you look again and only three of them were suicides (and one attempted suicide), one of which involved the jailers literally urged the victim to kill themself, none of which were high-profile. He has more examples of jailers killing their charges directly, ie exactly the sort of thing that proposed in the Epstein conspiracy theories he's supposedly trying to debunk! But you agree with what he's saying until you realize that he's not saying anything about the original question.
That's not an optimistic thing -- in many ways, it makes a lot of his earlier works (that I trusted too!) a good deal more painful to read than if he'd merely had his brain dribble out one ear in the meantime. And it's worse when you start seeing that pattern show up more and more (for a still-right-wing example, see Blackman at Volokh, and to a lesser extent on the libertarian side Balko) as you look for it.
gattsuru
1yr ago
There was a pretty serious boycott targeting Bud Light specifically highlighting Mulvaney's ad. It's not clear she could be cancelled in the fired sense -- from my understanding, this sort of influencer stuff is usually done as one-off contract work, if that -- but afaict the beer company has studiously avoided committing for or against any further ads with her, the ad company cut a lot of staff after, and a couple execs 'went on involuntary leave'.
gattsuru
1yr ago
I'll second this with roystgnr's caveat about it being a lot worse where people like Comperatore are victims, and also point to people who've made similar arguments in other contexts. FCFromSSC has pointed to the celebrations around the murder of Aaron Danielson (and conspiracy theories about the police shooting of his killer), but there were also significant efforts to explain how Lee Keltner or Jessica Doty-Whitaker 'deserved' it, and state prosecutors gleeful that their campaign lead to Jake Gardner's suicide.
gattsuru
1yr ago
Fair. For another author that did make the statement explicitly, Warren Ellis said:
Obviously, I’d rather Heavy Ink didn’t sell my work, but I don’t have a choice about which stores order my books. However, if you do buy my work from Heavy Ink, would you please consider buying it from someone else instead?
I do have a lot of sympathy!
Jokes and 'jokes' about violence aimed at specific politicians have always been sporadically enforced, and as much as it's unfair that there's been less notice aimed at the left for the last few decades, it means quite a lot of people genuinely don't have fair notice when the closest thing to ramifications was Kathy Griffin (and even she didn't get booted from Twitter) for almost two decades. Some people do genuinely just have a morbid sense of humor, not just when people they don't like are involved. And it's not unusual for a lot of the enforcement to really be 'about' some more tedious local drama leading whoever starts the cancel campaigns to bubble things up, or because some especially-neurotic town asshole decided to Make An Example of someone.
I just don't have arguments, or at least any not-laughable ones. I've been trying to write up some of the recent libertarian Barnett-Sandefur discourse on related topics, and it's just empty.
- That conservative formal opposition to social media censorship might result in even-handed de-escalation is kaput, an ex-argument, no more, ceased to be. I point to VioletBlue because she was one of the first examples I've offered in MotteSpace, literally no one but the strict free speech advocates noticed, and literally a week after her cancellation she using it as justification for broad censorship.. But it's not like that's nutpicking: Ozy's literal example of the Good Feminist argued that all that open-minded tolerance from Excluded only applied to "perspectives/experiences of marginalized groups", ie her side (and Ozy's significant other joined with the NYTimes cancel campaign against Scott). MorlockP's tolerance for sex worker twitter might have been crude, but it says something that it also came after said sex worker twitter wanted him banned from the platform and kept wanting it afterward. I have a hard time coming up with any examples of progressive targets of cancel culture who, after getting any support from conservatives, haven't turned around and bit back.
- That conservative uses of cancel culture will give ideas to progressive ones is runs face-first into the extent that there are almost-exactly overlapping examples, often longstanding ones. I bring up Corcoran above because it's an almost exact copy of this and, even if Correia doesn't mention him, he absolutely remembers him, and it's the room temperature. People have been thrown off projects they've run for over a decade for liking a tweet critical of a trans school shooter with the threat that if they did not leave other people on the project would have to pick between continued collaboration and their jobs. There's a guy who got fired for legal donations to a someone who was later found innocent and were only revealed because of hackers. A kid got his college invitation rescinded because he said bad words in Google Docs. Teacher's unions called in the FBI over people being a little rude at school board meetings; Canada declared not!martial law over truck horns. There's nothing new happening in any of the conservative-lead campaigns, and I'm pretty skeptical that people like LoTT could even come up with something inventive.
- That conservative uses of cancel culture will provide additional justification for progressive ones doesn't have any traction, either. Here, in this thread, we have people pointing to social conservative bans on homosexuality that are reaching back decades; in the past, we've had people explicitly drop back to 1950. And those aren't philosophies specific to here and now. Even if stopping today would reset the shot clock (not a given!), it would literally exceed my lifespan before we'd clear those existing time spans -- and as I've highlighted that conversation with SlightlyLessHairyApe, it's not like people have to or have stopped at 1950.
- ((The other common example is McCarthyism, and it kinda merges all of the above problems. In addition to its age, anti-McCarthyism was and is explicitly sold and taught as a universal principle about the importance of free speech from both government and corporate interference, vital to protect everyone, until it turned out to protect anyone outside of the Left, and then became Freeze Peach..))
- Does it hit the innocent or those on my side? Ignoring for now the difficult question of whether I have a side, there's no evidence here that anyone who's been hit is. Working at Home Depot doesn't make or require you be a Trump fan, conservative, or even Red Tribe, and this particular person was sickened by Trump's first month in 2017 in the local Press-Republican (no link, because it does actually spell out her name rather than mumble it, and I don't like this); while we don't have as strong evidence for Gass's political leanings as Jack Blacks, he's been calling a Trump victory dangerous since 2016.
- Should we only hit cancel culture advocates or participants? It'd be nice to have a good clean fight, but it's increasingly unclear such divisions exist. Forget indirect stuff like the extent it's gotten baked into HR at work; participating in progressive cancel culture is exceptionally common and these people are all pretty heavily online. I can't show that all those that LoTT is targeting today participated in 2020 cancellation efforts (and I know she doesn't care!), but I was able to find a couple with just a few minutes search.
What's left?
- Principles? Clearly these aren't shared values to the left, but worse than that it's far from clear they're even held by any opponent of cancel culture. Even among self-identified Big-L Libertarians, there's no shortage of big-name people who flirt back and forth from XKCD 1357. It's not that SlightlyLessHairyApe was coming up with increasingly threadbare excuses for why This Didn't Count; it's that the people who write entire legal treatises about the First Amendment and cancel culture struggle to handle whether turning the shop radio to the wrong should be a (required-to-be) fireable offense.
- Appeal to the center? @TracingWoodgrains might believe that the "the center... has been the only group consistently mobilizing against the phenomenon writ large", but a sizable part of my frustration is that, having spent well over a decade, I'm pretty far from convinced. For all the center might be shocked by the excesses of aggressive cancel culture, the resulting policies demonstrably changed minds far in excess of any backlash. In no small number of cases, the center absolutely loves it. We both, specifically, are beneficiaries of the illiberal stridency and cancel culture against homophobia, and today that means gay marriage is a 80%+ thing! Nobody cares about the 'f-word' getting people fired. And as much as I'm personally a fan of "don't beat up gay people" even if I'm far more mixed on jokes about gay people, "don't try to assassinate politicians" is pretty good as a goal if I'm far more mixed on joking about it.
- Hegemonic Swarms and the involved drama are Bad? That's a great argument for not doing it in Matt Parlmer's shop, and I've been lucky enough to find some places that try something at least along the same lines, but they're far outliers. Everywhere else has been quite happy to not merely tolerate but invite Progressive Hegemonic Swarms; whether the right does it or not has no impact on whether it shows up there.
I'd love to see reasons why. I've been looking! I'm not willing to join in, both for my principles and for the what did you think tolerance meant vibes posters reasons. But the best arguments I can find for anyone else to behave differently don't look very good.
gattsuru
1yr ago
American rules varied a lot by state and context.
14 states still prohibited 'sodomy' at the time of the 2003 Lawrence v Texas lawsuit, including a few that might surprise you like Massachusetts. While most of these were not enforced or only enforced with 'aggravating circumstances' (prostitution, exhibitionism, or assault) in modern times, firings of people, especially around 'sensitive positions', quite often highlighted ties to the 'illegal' behavior. While a few jurisdictions had employment protections against discrimination on the basis of sexuality as early as the 1970s, only fifteen states had such laws by Lawrence's release, and some states bounced back and forth (Ohio has switches policies six times since 1983, and I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up drawing back some of the gender identity stuff again).
Even where firing (or prosecuting!) someone for being gay was legal, not all jurisdictions had such firings be common or even present. And while there aren't good records about the typical firing -- both parties had as much cause to not publicize the matter as possible -- but cancel-culture like stuff was documented even at that early era. On the other hand, even where such bans on firings were present and enforced the cases aren't necessarily the most sympathetic.
((This is further impacted by the HIV crisis: no small part of paranoia in the 1980s and even early 90s genuinely did reflect concerns about transmission of a pretty deadly disease!))
Most of the overt cases reflect federal policies (both in military and in civilians) in the 1950s and 1960s, with the Vietnam and post-Vietnam era getting increasingly inconsistent over enforcement, but the military specifically officially considered homosexual behavior or identification cause for an other-than-honorable discharge until DADT under Clinton (which generally involved honorable discharges barring physical abuse, albeit with some post-separation pay ramifications). DADT was a thing in the military until 2010, and while some units would put significant efforts into willful blindness, others were willing to act on a cuckold's tip. Some civilian federal offices allegedly retained similar unofficial policies, though it's controversial how much that's supported by evidence.
I've pointed to [JD Vance's grandmother being tolerant in 1993] as one of the parts of the story that seems the least plausible to me, and that's not without cause. A variant less focused on God could well be true, even for an Appalachian Borderer (arguably especially: borderers take blood and friends seriously and religion less-than-literally). But at the risk of extrapolating from tiny samples, I know of coastals getting fired over it in that very year; it was a couple years before my own far-more-urbane father had a Talk with me and my brother, informing us that he didn't care what race of a girl we brought home, so long as we brought home a girl. It took a while for Tolerance to really take off, and if you're younger it can be hard to grip how quickly it came through.
gattsuru
1yr ago
Travis Corcoran is better known as MorlockP; at the time he was just a small time righty gunblogger and rando (technically, I think at the time identified as libertarian?), but he's since become a moderately well-known figure in both literary conservative circles, which MonsterHunter45 also swims in, and in New Hampshire state politics. A lot of that was downstream of the Massachusetts JTTF investigations, where state police confiscated Corcoran's guns, 'temporarily' took his gun license, and which Corcoran points at partially causing the failure of his business at the time, since in addition to the costs of lawfare, multiple comic writers told their fans to boycott him.
gattsuru
1yr ago
There's a lot of right-wingers talking about how this is the crows coming home to roost, and reasons that they don't have a lot of sympathy. I don't think it's a particularly useful approach to go down, but I don't exactly have a ton of great arguments against it.
gattsuru
1yr ago
The full video and (admittedly autogen'd) transcript is here, with the relevant quotes starting around 23:00 to 30:00 (probably not worth listening to). I'm not a big fan of the Andrew Jackson worship, but the question itself assumes that said bureaucrats will be defying executive direction.
Yes. Variants that plug into small computer have been around for a while: early generation Palm Pilots rather famously had a pretty slick full-size TLK keyboard in the late 90s early 00s, and they're clever enough people make adapters for them today. No onboard storage without the Palm Pilot, though.
In terms of the smallest possible device that only had storage and operated without interacting with anything else, you're mostly going to be limited by your mechanicals and the software. If you're willing to deal with momentary switches, you don't even have to make it a folding device, though in turn it will absolute suck to use.
If you want conventional switches and keycaps, you're pretty much stuck with a pretty specific layout given your target number of keys, and mechanical switches are very hard to find slimmer than a half-inch (meaning you get one fold at most before it looks like you're smuggling the world's most awkward hardon). Scissor-style switches exist that about half that, but gfl finding 'em. For conventional cherry-MX and a 70% layout, expect a minimum size of 4" by 6" by 2" -- probably more cargo pant-pocket sized. The scissor-style switches can drop that down to less than an inch thick -- still bigger than a cell phone, but not as bad.
In the middle is... well, the membrane and lever approach from the Palm Keyboard, or membrane-and-contact. This only really saves vertical height, but it can be pretty huge in that dimension: membrane-and-contact keyboards can be literally a couple millimeters thick, or even rollable. Downside is that they're expensive and difficult in small sizes to get from major builders; DIY variants are usually based on flexPCBs that can be janky to work with or assemble.
The headless part is pretty trivial from a hardware perspective. You can get cheap tiny SOCs for a headless nix setup at sub 5 USD per chip at unit 1, and microcontrollers in the sub-1 USD range. The former will be easier to work with if you're trying to store data forever (who wants to write their own file system!), while the latter will be more energy-efficient.
Batteries are trivial, these days.
I think you're in eastern europe, and at least some of the US options are very unlikely to generalize over there (and the numbers are low for the US: 4 USD/day is about SNAP levels, and those are intended to supplement food budgets, not replace them entirely). If you're asking for US-side given the dollar unit:
The standard in the United States for hard-protein diets has traditionally been chicken breast, at about 130 grams protein and 700 calories per pound. Exact prices will vary depending on location, but expect around 2-3 USD per pound boneless skinless chicken breast in store brand bulk, generally on the lower end if you look at places like Sam's Club/CostCo. Bone-in used to consistently be less than 2 USD per pound, but it can vary a lot right now.
Canned tuna is kinda second-best: it's a little more expensive (~3ish USD per pound) and fewer calories, but it's shelf stable and prices are very stable. Depending on location, expect to need to check places like Gordon Food Services to buy in bulk. On the downside, large quantities start raising serious questions about heavy metal toxicity, and eating just canned tuna in water can risk rabbit starvation. Most people can't eat too much of it straight or solely spiced, as well.
Dried beans are more cost-effective in terms of dollar/calorie, but they can take obnoxious amounts of time to prepare, and they're pretty high in fat and carbs for the protein you get. Exact variety matters, but expect around 1-2 USD/pound dry weight, 100-120 grams protein and 1300 calories per pound. Even good in terms of dietary fiber! Downside is that it's a lot of beans, to the point I'm not sure I could eat that much in a day. Can be good to supplement or for variety, though.
Whey protein can sometimes be a reasonable choice, but it's very dependent on where and who you buy from. Some of the bulk purchases (eg Costco) can get as low as 3 USD/day to hit your protein requirements, while others will be as high as 30 USD/day.
Ground beef and turkey are usually (much) less dollar-efficient, but they can be used as supplements for flavor variation in ways that most of the above can't. Same for eggs. Unlike eggs, ground beef and turkey do (often!) go on sale, either for holidays or as it gets close to expiration date, often to compare or beat 'normal' chicken prices. Milk is very cheap, but it doesn't work well after the first gallon a day, and it doesn't work at all if you're lactose intolerant. (and I'd expect it's cheap in the US because of US-specific government policy stuff. Same for cheese.)
For filling the remainder of your diet, your big options are either breads or rice or noodles for carbohydrates, with the fixings (butter, fattier beans, heavy soups like cream of mushroom) for fats. You can get 1000 calories per 0.75 USD, here, without struggling too much; going with big bulk purchases can drop below that (eg 50 lbs of enriched white rice from CostCo runs around 25 USD, and each pound is 1500 calories and about 30 grams protein).
You can and should add some leafy greens for fiber and for macronutrients, but it tends to be what you do with the rest of your food budget, rather than a starting point.
These numbers are a little out of date, especially with current food inflation, but they'll point in a right-ish direction.
gattsuru
1yr ago
Depends heavily on how you're reading the tribes. If they're about political allegiance or what clothes you wear, yeah. If they're about how you were raised and what things you value, it's... well, at least dependent on how much you trust Vance's story. His upraising and claimed norms are incredibly lower-middle-class Borderer, in a lot of ways that are pretty heavily opposed to Grey Tribe aspects and auspices, and not just in ways that are pandering to social conservatives.
But he's a politician, and his mouth is moving. So he's lying, it's just a matter of what direction.
gattsuru
1yr ago
The book tries to draw up something more complex -- his grandmother being his primary caregiver and if she had been a hellion in her youth she'd at least tempered with age; his biological father got enough religion to take enough responsibility to provide some anchoring force not long after; having moved or been moved from some of the more hillbilly areas -- but I think for the most part he didn't get out clean, so much as the space between clean and dirty is a gradient with a steep slope :
I didn’t know it, but I was close to the precipice. I had nearly failed out of my freshmen year of high school, earning a 2.1 GPA. I didn’t do my homework, I didn’t study, and my attendance was abysmal. Some days I’d fake an illness, and others I’d just refuse to go. When I did go, I did so only to avoid a repeat of the letters the school had sent home a few years earlier—the ones that said if I didn’t go to school, the administration would be forced to refer my case to county social services.
Along with my abysmal school record came drug experimentation — nothing hard, just what alcohol I could get my hands on and a stash of weed that Ken’s son and I found. Final proof, I suppose, that I did know the difference between a tomato plant and marijuana.
((This is also part of why I'd caution against operating solely from reviews. One person's take on a story won't be the same as the story. For another example, "Bob" in Vance's example ends up having a different set of problems than listed in the review, likely as a result of going offhand: he misses fewer days a week on average but spends much longer in restroom breaks, and dormin1111's "nearly physically assaulting the boss" is just "he lashed out" verbally in the original. Maybe they mean the same things, but they're not the same statements.))
There's a view where these aren't the Real Sins.
Vance had to lie to keep his biological mother out of jail (allegedly threatening him with vehicular murder-suicide at 12), but he always had a different house to fall back to. He had a crappy GPA, but never flunked out of a grade. He had to forge a parent's signature to keep from being found truant in a legally-fraught way, but he was never kicked out of a school. He fought, viciously, with not!family who didn't buy into the borderer culture and could have gotten arrested over, but he never was so violent that someone tried to have him charged over it. He drank and smoke pot, but he didn't get addicted to narcotics. His mother saw him as useful for little more than piss (literally, to pass a drug test), but his grandmother pressed him to keep a passing grade.
The view Vance is pushing -- whether or not he believes it -- is that there's a very narrow step from one side of that gradient to the other, and that while he never recognized the slope in his youth, he sees it now. It's pretty explicit:
Thinking about it now, about how close I was to the abyss, gives me chills. I am one lucky son of a bitch.
((Though I think to an extent, Vance did benefit by having distractions. Hillbilly Eligy only mentions the TI 89 calculator and trading cards and television, but the man entered high school in 1998, and turned 18 several months after 9/11. It's quite possible that his version of 'acting out' was watching banned television shows, plinking with a BB gun, or passing around bootleg cassettes and nudie mags and beer and pot, because he had too many better things to do with his time: much of his worst behaviors were opportunistic. Similarly, modern-day borderers can kill someone three-dozen times for making fun of their mom, and then do it all again with laser swords-only: if it's in Halo the cops don't care. But sometimes that just puts off some of the issues.))
gattsuru
1yr ago
He blew up almost everything during his twitter flounce, and I'm pretty sure the remainder only exist because he couldn't (figure out how to) delete the remainder. I haven't seen him yglesias his bluesky timeline yet.
gattsuru
1yr ago
gattsuru
1yr ago
Of the, actual real people, group I was with there was one "wouldn't have been so bad if he missed" flippant comment. Which Blue Couple did not appreciate and shamed him for, despite all the the vitriol Blue Wife has directed towards the former president over the years.
I think at least part of that depends on the social groups you're running within. I got this (cw: ffxiv spoilers) linked in my social groups, followed by someone I gave computer build advice not twelve hours before joking about 'the hero we didn't know we needed'.
It's not universal among the left, but neither is it just the Kathy Griffins and Keith Olbermanns, either.
gattsuru
1yr ago
Uh...
The next day, Betts and a group of 50 to 75 people gathered at Market Place Mall. At approximately 3:12 p.m., they began damaging property and looting stores. Betts captured the riot on Facebook Live telling his viewers “[l]ook what a n**** just started … look what a n**** just started. We out here … .” In another video, Betts is seen looting two stores: Macy’s and Old Navy. The riot moved to other businesses on Prospect Avenue and Neil Street. Betts participated in the riot for an hour or so, but rioting apparently lasted until the early morning hours. By the next day, several businesses were damaged and lost merchandise. As revealed in text messages to friends and family, Betts proudly took credit for starting the riot.
It's a prosecution (well, guilty plea), but summarizing it as 'making a Facebook post' is... a little misleading.
I think it depends a lot on what your next alternative is. The morbid possibility is that CrowdStrike could be incompetent and also beat their customers rawdogging the internet. Even if this incident cost 1b USD, that's something like fifty major ransomware strikes. CrowdStrike could conceivably have blocked that many this year.
Of course, CrowdStrike isn't the only alternative. Businesses can use a variety of other protections and/or make themselves more robust to successful attacks. Whether they're more reliable or not is a !!fun!! question, but underneath that, there's a funner one: could businesses have made it? Contra a lot of reporting, I don't know that every regulated company has to use CrowdStrike specifically, but I do know that for even low levels of regulated industry it's a very common requirement that's accepted as a box checked, where alternatives that I could find required additional support not all IT teams would be able to provide.
More options
Context Copy link