I own you!
take ownership & full access of all resources
threat actor exploits a vulnerable application that is (1) running as you to (2) access resources it doesn’t need: they commandeer your system
how did that happen?
🤔
- 0 Posts
- 39 Comments
Joined 7 months ago
Cake day: December 13th, 2024
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
Great way to get your computer pwnt.
/*What’s
*doing here? Operate only on the nonhidden top-level files?
723·4 days agoimage of text
no link to source or actual text
pointlessly breaking the web & accessibilityDoes OP know about this alternative to images of text called text? 🤦
That’s a good reason to wear them along with stiff fabric that awkwardly wrinkles outward in the crotch area: fun to flick that in plain sight to enhance the discomfort of onlookers.
Yep, clear & direct is kindness.
I like to insist on basic standards: “Please provide an agenda that explains why we’re needed. Otherwise, I’ll have to turn down this meeting. Thanks.” and reply all. Often, others will agree the lack of written preparation is a problem & follow suit.
If the agenda is simple & clear enough, I’ll just answer in writing so we can cancel the meeting.
If your whole schtick is about decluttering, you should be able to differentiate between “less” and “fewer.” Getting things down to a countable number achieves “fewer”-ness.
Bullshit dogmatic rule by pedants who make up rules & pass them down like schmucks instead of observing & studying the actual, standard language. True: fewer is only for countables. However, less is fine. It has been used with countables for about as long as written English has existed as documented by linguists & English usage references:
quoted passage
The primary point is that the now-standard pedantry about less/fewer is in fact one of the many false “rules” that have recently precipitated out of the over-saturated solution of linguistic ignorance where most usage advice is brewed.
But not the usage advice at MWCDEU. This is the start of its entry on less/fewer:
Here is the rule as it is usually encountered: fewer refers to number among things that are counted, and less refers to quantity or amount among things that are measured. This rule is simple enough and easy enough to follow. It has only one fault—it is not accurate for all usage. If we were to write the rule from the observation of actual usage, it would be the same for fewer: fewer does refer to number among things that are counted. However, it would be different for less: less refers to quantity or amount among things that are measured and to number among things that are counted. Our amended rule describes the actual usage of the past thousand years or so.
As far as we have been able to discover, the received rule originated in 1770 as a comment on less:
This Word is most commonly used in speaking of a Number; where I should think Fewer would do better. No Fewer than a Hundred appears to me not only more elegant than No less than a Hundred, but strictly proper. —Baker 1770
Baker’s remarks about fewer express clearly and modestly—“I should think,” “appears to me”—his own taste and preference. […]
How Baker’s opinion came to be an inviolable rule, we do not know. But we do know that many people believe it is such. Simon 1980, for instance, calls the “less than 50,000 words” he found in a book about Joseph Conrad a “whopping” error.
The OED shows that less has been used of countables since the time of King Alfred the Great—he used it that way in one of his own translations from Latin—more than a thousand years ago (in about 888). So essentially less has been used of countables in English for just about as long as there has been a written English language. After about 900 years Robert Baker opined that fewer might be more elegant and proper. Almost every usage writer since Baker has followed Baker’s lead, and generations of English teachers have swelled the chorus. The result seems to be a fairly large number of people who now believe less used of countables to be wrong, though its standardness is easily demonstrated.
Less is more general than fewer, and the references identify common constructions where less is preferred with countables.
You aren’t good to them for reciprocation, though, right? You’re good because it is right & just?
Sometimes being good means treating others justly, which isn’t necessarily nice & sweet. Are we confusing good with sweet?
What is a guy with 3 wives supposed to look like?
Egyptians had cool, mystery animals no one can figure out to this day.
2·1 month agoGood joke: irrational people on this website certainly don’t recognize much.
An argument from authority is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority figure (or figures) who lacks relevant expertise is used as evidence to support an argument.
Logic is the study of methods for evaluating whether the premises of an argument adequately support its conclusion.
Definition doesn’t apply: logic isn’t “an authority” capable of bearing “opinion” or “expertise”.
Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false.
its conclusion must be false
falseSorry, defenders of irrationality: calling out an invalid argument (without claiming that implies a false conclusion) is not argument from fallacy. When someone points out your argument is flawed, fix it. 😎
Sometimes my comments are mistaken for AI, which I don’t understand, because I’m a horrible writer.
Now I like to imitate AI just to piss people off—new trolling potential unlocked! Also, I like characters
:—…⁝.
That’s probably why Mesopotamians chose them: the convention traces back to them. Measuring angles in degrees also traces back to them.
Still, those numbers/units are quite arbitrary & introduce unnecessary conversions. Radians are dimensionless & require no conversion. Converting seconds to a more natural unit like days involves reintroducing those highly composite numbers that fit better in base-60 than the base-10 system we now use.
Maybe go SI with day as base unit & SI prefixes? Eg, deciday, centiday, milliday.
Gift from ancient Mesopotamia. Mesopotamians love 12 & base 60. They also liked 7. Those numbers recur in their mythology.
Americans have a weird fixation with 💯. Where Americans might use percentages, I’ve seen Japanese plot values in [0, 1] (ie, pure proportions).
Imperial measurements that are not integers are displayed in fractions.
Often, they’re not: look at packaging labels especially in grocery stores. Engineers use decimals regardless of unit.
Weight scales in the US don’t mark 1⁄3.
Quarter & third likely show up for verbal ease/brevity of naming: saying 250 grams is a bit of mouthful & unlikely for naming anything. I suspect if Americans used metric, they might still use fractions to refer to burgers by weight/mass in kg (like drugs!).
In metrics, fractions are rarely used.
Also convention. Nothing prevents 1⁄3 kg, 1⁄4 kg, and I’d expect to see 1⁄3 kg more often than 0.3̅ kg if rounding were avoided.
In metric, Americans still would get this wrong, because they don’t understand fractions despite using them. Or are you suggesting everyone would get the order of 1⁄3 kg & 1⁄4 kg wrong?
Pretty sure fractions are pure math & not metric or imperial.
Americans do be dumb AF, though.
There are better text editors. Swearing by that one is kind of a joke.
Those new-fangled memes are watered-down trash, though. Vintage memes slapped harder.
Did someone use AI to generate you?