Depends on when you played it. It came out in a decade of generic war shooters (including other spec ops games) so the subversion slid under most people’s radar, which was intended. There are subtle hints as you play, but iirc the scene described above was the first time the game really slaps you across the face.

It took a few years for the game to gain a cult following and recognize it for what it is. Nowadays the only people who go back to play it already have some idea of what they’re getting into.

It sucks that this is how humanity has to learn these lessons. “Sure, we’ve done a holocaust before…but have we done a holocaust during the age of the internet with a bunch of propaganda saying it’s not happening?”

I don’t think people who refer to “Anonymous” are referring to “the average 4channer”.

If you’re ok with being up front with people, you could just say “hey, do you mind giving me some alone time while I eat? It’s nothing personal, I just prefer to use this time to recharge by myself.”

If you’d prefer to manufacture an excuse, you could tell her you’re going to use your lunch hour to try a new mindfulness meditation technique you heard about, and need to avoid conversation during that time.

If you have the option to take your lunch somewhere else where she won’t find or bother you, that’s an option.

I think usually just keeping your nose in your book a few seconds too long before giving short answers to questions, then going right back to reading, is enough discomfort for a person like her that even if she didn’t get the hint that you don’t care to be bothered, she would at least prefer talking to someone else instead.

For the record, Introversion and Extroversion have a scientific basis. The Myers-Briggs does not.

That’s the thing, it does. GTA doesn’t support BattlEye for linux.

The best way to do this is to show them the exploit in action. Nothing perks a kid’s ears up like holding up a USB drive and saying “there is a virus on this”.

Run a demo in class of how easy it is to plug a random drive into one computer, and suddenly have full access from another computer (remote viewer and webcam access to really drive the point home. They’re not going to be amazed when you type whoami and the console says root.)

Doing this is like saying “I know black magic and if you listen to me, I can teach you how it works, and how to defend yourself against it”. What you have is no longer hypothetical to them, they will be invested.

When I was in high school I wanted to learn how to program, how computers work, etc., but when I took the Java course offered the assignments were boring basics that I couldn’t use for anything. Everyone in the class thought of it as a blowoff course.

What everyone in the class was intrigued by was the fact that the teacher ran her own local network for the class and didn’t properly secure anything. It wasn’t long before someone figured out that they could shut down any other computer on the network using a simple shutdown command on the cmdline, passing another host as the target. Which led to an arms race of people finding ways to block themselves from being shut down, while also managing to shut each other down. Turns out a shutdown can’t be issued if another shutdown is already in progress, so the first line of defense was to issue a 24h shutdown on your own machine. But then we looked at the params to shutdown.exe and found the ability to abort shutdown options. Soon we all had a library of offensive and defensive .bat files, and the class was an all-out digital warzone!

All that is to say, kids like:

• to play games
• they like to compete
• they like to poke and prod things, make them behave in ways they’re not supposed to
• experiment
• feel safe breaking things and learning from the pieces that come out
• “hacking”
• and they like walking out of the class, seeing a random piece of technology, and having a new found understanding of its strengths, weaknesses, and how to manipulate effectively.

They don’t like:

• assignments
• being told to do the same thing as the person next to them, print out some expected result, and turn it in
• leaving the classroom and thinking “finally”
• not knowing how to tie anything they learned back to their lives outside the class.

I know you have a list of things you’d like them to learn, but most kids will look at how difficult and primitive the computer you’re showing them is, and then look at their phone, and say “why am I learning how to use an old style computer? New computers don’t work like this, they have touch screens, and voice control, and app stores”. You and i know this is a misguided mentality to have, but that’s what they will think. It’s up to you to relate everything in the class back to the computers they are actually familiar with. If you give them a new way to understand and interact with the computers they use daily, you will have them hooked.

I don’t get why people use Twitter as a social media platform, but the format is/was useful when you just want to see what a certain person or organization has said recently. Ex. Local DOT updates or a game studio during a server outage.

That said, twitter has never figured out how to be self-sustaining, even before Musk implemented his air-tight nose dive strategy. And I’m not a fan of public orgs relying on a for-profit platform to communicate with the community. Especially when that platform retroactively decides you need to make an account and log in to view anything on it.

So it’s kinda the inverse of OP’s question: I get why it’s a useful idea even though it’s not actually working out.

Prometheus: “If you can’t own fire, then stealing it isn’t piracy.”

Zeus: “I can own fire.”

Prometheus: “oh.”

Ah, gotcha. Yeah, it’s always hard to know what really happened when dealing with this kinda stuff in the media. In this English version they say,

a Russian government official said…The official, like others, spoke on condition of anonymity due to concerns for personal safety.

Here’s the Russian version of the article (which uses штурмовики) where they instead say,

a Russian government official explained to The Moscow Times.

So it sounds like they’re not quoting a public statement from the Kremlin, but someone on the inside feeding information to this outlet. Allegedly. Could be that person’s wording, or could be the outlet’s “interpretation”.

Thanks, good to know!

The term predates star wars, if that’s what you’re thinking. Star wars got the term from actual fascist regimes. According to Google translate, they probably used the term штурмовой отдел.

Yeah, idk why everyone seems to legitimately think devs are going to just quietly revert back to usermode anticheat. I could see Riot patching an actual root kit before that happens.

But yeah, more likely MSFT will lobby for hw that is more annoying than secure boot or TPM to get working with linux, every windows app after that point will rely on it “because turnkey security!”, and if you ever manage to disable it none of those apps will work on your machine in any OS (if they even worked through proton at all).

“I laugh in the face of ground faults!”

Oook, i was thinking at the instance moderation level, you’re meaning at the software dev level.

U have two options: stop donating or suck it up and let them develop feature B.

Or fork it, add your own features, and don’t break federation compatibility (activitypub? idk). But I guess we’re talking specifically about features where that’s not possible.

I don’t know how well this would fare, because it sounds to me like you’re replacing the dev lead position with a democracy/hivemind.

Like it or not, software development often follows the Pareto Principle (20% of the devs contribute 80% of the code), and IMO that happens because those 20% think of themselves as responsible for the direction of the project. They feel empowered to have a vision for the project and work towards it over time from their deep understanding of everything going on (because they are responsible for 80% of it).

I think you would effectively be subverting that position and developer mindset. No dev could ever feel that responsibility or empowerment because they aren’t in control of the direction the software is going. They are at the mercy of the vote. They can’t make changes with future decisions in mind because they don’t have control. They might have implemented one feature completely differently if they had known the outcome of a future vote on a future feature.

Best case, people just listen to the devs expertise and let them do what they want. Worst case, the devs disagree with the outcome of a vote and the project, maybe forking it to make their own dictatorship, and a bunch of users will likely follow them.

That would be my main concern with the model, but who am I to say. Maybe it’s never happened because it’s inherently flawed, or maybe just no one has ever tried it. Or maybe it is happening right now somewhere and I’ve just never heard of it.

• I assume this new platform still has instances (i.e. is federated), except that each one is somehow required (under the threat of defederation maybe?) to operate in this “worker-consumer coop” model? Or are we talking about some centralized organization that oversees all instances?
• What prevents a Lemmy instance from trying this today? It sounds like this is something you want to try out?
• What does the paid tier get you? What’s the difference between the paid tier of this new system, and the donations model of Lemmy?

I think their question is, what do you mean by “secure”? Because as the saying goes for internet services: usually, if you’re not paying, you’re not the customer, you’re the product.

The existence of this article is confusing to me. FB doesn’t need to “scrape” their own site, and they don’t care about whether you set your photos to public or private.

As others have said, the best option is to buy the TV you want, update it to the latest firmware, then disconnect it from the internet and use your own external devices.

This is because the companies making the best display technology (much of it proprietary) at an affordable price have no incentive to sell “dumb” variants of their TVs when the “smart” version makes them way more money.