Untitled attachment

Kevin Beaumont (gossithedog@cyberplace.social)'s status on Thursday, 16-Jan-2025 09:26:15 JST

in reply to

The other thing to mention is the prior dump was via CVE-2018-13379. These devices, based on the config dumps, are largely running versions which were long ago patched for that.

So what = later vuln.

Embed this notice

My camera shoots fascists (mikal@sfba.social)'s status on Wednesday, 15-Jan-2025 10:38:15 JST

My camera shoots fascists

in reply to

I just realized that this coming weekend I have a wilderness first responder recertification and I have a bunch of online studying to complete beforehand, so this may be my last trip out here before the inauguration and whatever changes happen after that.

So I'm gonna make the drive around to the Nogales end of the wall. There's a border monument there that I want to hike up to and photograph that is still accessible and I can at least do some drone aerials if the wind isn't too bad.

Embed this notice

HUMAN CHANGE = WORK TOGETHER ? (freeschool@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 04-Jan-2025 16:35:41 JST

HUMAN CHANGE = WORK TOGETHER ?

in reply to

@freemo @messaroundmarx Interesting. I notice 2 things.

1/ I'm possibly falling into that typical bashing of "Capitalism" maybe because I'm not getting what I want related to the other parts of life I want and responsibility of many systems which Capitalism doesn't seem to help with - at all (at least the Modern kind).

Ideally I'd like to think, involves or implement #Mutual #Cooperation (towards various things), Saving #Nature, Increasing #Commons / #Commoning, #Feelings / #Consent being part of it but not I don't see these words a lot or at all in Capitalism or books. So maybe I blame it or anyone that uses it overly (which I don't think can only be blamed on (people but the design too).

So the name is one thing but also I'm just a bit more concerned / defending what these words ignore / over-write / replace with numbers or mathematical tricks frankly.

YOU CAN SKIP TO 2ND POINT FOR NOW AND NEXT HORIZONTAL LINES...
and come back here if you have the taste for it... above as the main point 1
======================================

Caring about what people think is not just a number for example or free-market. All this 'other stuff' not in systems seems to me actively cutting it out (again said or not said).
And after that many things like Authoritarianism are exactly what you get as result of #MoralFailures or mostly physical / material ways of looking at life / extraction of it etc. There's more than that, hence Capitalism limited (of course but used by people deliberately so for that and evolving to crush people).

❓ Is it possible to have #commons and #caring with Capitalism?
Maybe. But not fully it seems.

❓ Does Capitalism mean banks and debt-based system creates debt mostly first and therefore negative propelled polarity / not positive in the other humans sense? Seems so.

❓ What it is Capitalism heading towards in terms of facilitating religion / beliefs / caring of various kinds never just 1 as a whole number or limited attribute / bigger spectrum of attributes?

Holding *Modern Capitalism* responsible seems relative - or those who are responsible for using it as rolling steam-roller of things

If #Capitalism prefers to ignore or lacks participation on human levels then it can reflect how much it is like a x y or z type system.

Finance or number-looking perspectives are close to #Fascism for me as the whole story is looking at people for profit / pimping / working them without diversity in mind (just for money) and other moral transactions is less there / non-existent. What it means to people locally, nature, seems a bit too encompassing as a system to involves but if we agree people are largely not part of the equation (only material and physical type intellect used once it's gained) then it seem play less of a part in life even though part of it physically.

IF free-market Capitalism involves not caring about or even assume we can do free-market selling the planet then perhaps for me it infers selling people or planet is ok - which seems wrong... at least without a whole other balance...

I'm defending what other people might feel ok with even by their God or just what exists today as a result of leverage to make people work (throttling for maximising gain) and could exist more towards making it free / pre=paid than for any kind of mass profit / screwing people to the wall to work for Capitalism. Imagnie most of the profit could pay for the many.

❓ Is Capitalism part of a rolling class of similar people or positions and keeping their position?

So I'm reviewing those things as "Capitalism" while at the same time it is is all probably asking a bit too much from language when it's a whole bunch of things.

========================================
2ND POINT

2/ At the same time of accepting inaccuracy or differences I feel like it's bad overall and not as neutral as you're talking about - almost 'another' kind of definition or free-market Capitalism definition, which surely exists, but in today's sense I'm not sure it does any more and not as embedded as it is today - so *just* the more static or classical past definition sure, but the practical usage today ( ignoring planetary limits, increasingly number representations NOT representing people properly or planet, animal-lovers, maybe #ClimateChange / #EnvironmentDamage at the expense of a business perspectives that Capitalism might have ( or simply might ignore and not declare as limits, assuming Infinite Growth, taking from other markets ok etc)... Can seem less related to Capitalism and 'maybe' not Capitalism's fault but it's part of how people use it... so it is different today both how it's used and what it is.

Today's version being tied to everything I feel which could frame the classical sense(s) of the word Capitalism differently and is not isolated any more - literally everything is increasingly weaponised FOR Capitalism or 'as' Capitalism itself is evolving and is / or becoming under #Authoritarianism or whatever let's say aggression or over-ruling personal beliefs, territorial eating of other's resources (or many things Capitalism is part of but might seem completely 'optional' to reader of the dictionary). People have and fall into a definite program whichever way it seems you look at it to do a set type of patterns at the expense of almost 'these thing' almost never. Why not? Largely the answer is that it's geared for very different things, not happiness or end-game for future children, it looks upon people and things well almost the same - just a thing to kick around and find sweet spot of demand and supply MINI-GAMES which make a bit of a mockery at the end.

Anyway some robust questions - all that is about caring and not sure how much you're into that.

So...

- Could the definition of Capitalism you had in mind change with time?

- How about if Capitalism is used as a sub-set to Authoritarianism ?
Would repackaging make it different weapon be totally innocent like a trigger for a gun or #mechanism not always for bullets but similar?

A strong repackage of Capitalism or forced-evolution tree (Like most #Linux #servers functioning or treated like an #advertising #farm) makes it a different animal overall and from birth - despite it being ok once as a component on it's own (but also server architecture changing). All these change / renders the definition, relativity and practical implementation different today even if still the same 'basic principle'.

Embed this notice

Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦 (rysiek@mstdn.social)'s status on Thursday, 28-Nov-2024 22:00:41 JST

Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦

in reply to

@rcz right. You added the chromosome thing, we'll get back to that.

So a person assigned female at birth, participating in sports for years upon years (meaning being close quarters in changing rooms with other women), is in your opinion now considered male.

Should Amal be allowed to participate in sports as a woman?

Should Amal be allowed to participate in sports as a man?

Embed this notice

goatsarah (goatsarah@thegoatery.dyndns.org)'s status on Wednesday, 20-Nov-2024 12:32:36 JST

goatsarah

I want to talk about something I just saw on Reddit. It was regarding the US election, and it was a Democrat saying something to the effect of how he can agree with “the other side” on one thing.

No prizes for guessing: it’s trans women. Specifically, he regards the idea that we can participate in society in any meaningful way (you know, like being able to use toilets in restaurants and stuff) as “insane”.

And of course, he got to talking about “penises” straight away, which tells us a lot about how people like him see us, because I don’t know about you, but when I think about women, “penis”. Is not my go-to. Hell, when I think about ANYBODY, I don’t tend to think about sex organs. Only really comes up in a sexual context.

Not only do these people not see us as women. They don’t see us as PEOPLE. To a considerable number of cis people, we are “some sort of weird sex thing”. That’s it. That’s the bit of their brain we occupy.

People have hopes and dreams and lives and people they love and who love them, and need to use toilets occasionally. Weird sex things don’t do any of that.

So of course the Democrats treating us as human is “weird” to them.

And he was massively up-voted, and congratulated about “finding common ground with political opponents”, and the comments saying, “what the hell? These are humans you’re talking about!” were all a long way down, and not popular.

This is how cis people see us. Not all of them, but a lot of them. An awful lot. Of the ones who don’t, a lot of them will only support us as long as it doesn’t require any personal awkwardness.

Anyway, my point here is not to wallow, but to present the context in which we fight for equality, because I think it’s clear that these people will never grant it to us voluntarily.

Not only are there no consequences for them to treat us like shit; they are CONGRATULATED for it.

And they will only stop if they are MADE to.

That’s the context in which our struggle operates.

Embed this notice

13 barn owls in a trenchcoat (hauntedowlbear@eldritch.cafe)'s status on Monday, 16-Sep-2024 17:19:32 JST

13 barn owls in a trenchcoat

We're using a 1920x1080 canvas size for our #FediJam adventure game and I'm preparing to knock up some programmer character animations to go with that.

So while I work today, I'm trying to learn about proportionality and scale, which is in part covered by this pixel art class video:

Pixel Art Class - What's The Right Canvas Size? - Character Sizes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upEGBGCiWEw&t=724s

I originally concluded that Escoria's demo character, the rather punchable Graham (no relation to Graham of Daventry) was far too big for how I'd like to imagine a P&C adventure protag to be when in Escoria's default setting, but it's also become clear that I'm working on far too vast a scale for my programmer art (TM) and should be upscaling to my 1080 height.

(Could and should apply more scale to character sprite, too, which is about 200px tall)

Okay, back to paying work now.

Public

Notices where this attachment appears