he/him, chronically [redacted] and severely online

  • 1 Post
  • 17 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 13th, 2023

help-circle



  • Not a sysadmin, just a casual IT.

    If it is open, it is going to get hit by scanners, scrapers, everything and the sun, even if it is secure. Generally, 443 for your websites via reverse proxy with an IP whitelist + password is okay. Not special, lets you add subdomains, very convenient.

    Now, there isn’t anything special about any given port, but you still need to have some form of access control that you need to set up. If it is an API have some sort of API key in place. Implement 2FA. Try to isolate the service from the machine. Isolate the machine from bare metal. Keep the bare metal machine isolated from your home network. Take up farming. Change the default port and add some form of access alerts/logs. Have some sort of fail2ban service in place because you will be firehosed with scripts and bad traffic.

    Maybe some of the stuff I recommend is paranoid overkill, but I don’t know enough to cut corners. Security is a hassle, a breach is a nightmare.




  • I’m gonna be that guy and say most of this misses the mark. The point of stupid catchphrases is to make it extremely obvious why something is wrong in a manner that is personally relatable to the audience, nuance be damned. Not only does this not do that, it implicitly agrees with the original premise. Let’s look at common examples and retorts.

    “Black lives matter” -> “All lives matter”

    The initial phrase is short punchy and too the point, but the retorts is as well. Instead of trying to address the issue, it reframes the original to give it a meaning that it doesn’t have. (Black lives matter too)->(Only black lives matter). An effective* retort, but not a cache phrase of its own, lest the person be caught looking “liberal”.

    “Global warming” -> “Look, a snowball/Why is it so cold?”

    This retort does the same thing by instead taking the words literal meaning and misinterpreting it deliberately, rather than engaging with the vast body of science that backs it up (our actions as humans have caused a consistent rise in global temperature averages which has caused ecological disasters and a financial apocalypse). The retort moves the perspective away from the original wide view point, and directs your personal attention to the “snowball/cold” (it’s cold, therefore it is not warm) despite being incredibly stupid, this comes off as smug to their team, so they are going to repeat it. Excellent thought termination.

    “Eat bugs” -> “Shrimp is bugs”

    Congratulations to all of you that remember the original lemmy raids and psyop posting, so I’ll go through this one for fun. This one stems from a right wing conspiracy theory claiming that due to impending food shortages all regular food will be given to rich elites and we will all be forced to eat bugs. Uhhhhh??? (Food anxiety, antisemitism?, “economic anxiety”/suffering under capitalism, invocation of gross) Shrimp is bugs succinctly acts as a retort because it reframes the issue. Bugs ain’t cheap (you won’t be forced to eat lobster???) Shrimp aren’t gross/unfamiliar (Don’t tell me you’ve never had seafood). Destroying a global cabal in under three words might take some workshopping. (half point for smug because it is stating the obvious)

    “Couch-fucker/Weird” -> no retorts yet …

    10/10 no notes lmao. Being verifiably false and still accurate gives you the smugness point off of the bat. “Weird” invokes the gross which reduces support for people that wear spray tan makeup. Couch fucker is both distinct and specific enough to to be remembered, succinct in criticizing Vance’s lack of charisma and hot-topic-esqe makeup, and cannot be easily misinterpreted without ceding the entire argument.

    “Go woke go broke” -> Go Nazi get shot?

    A retort should be:

    1. Be smug/obvious about it. (x)
    2. Make the people saying it seem gross/weird/weak. (x)
    3. Explain/refute/sidestep the issue. (x)
    4. Under 4 words/Writable with emoji. (✓)

    I’m much more fond of “Follow your leader” although that’s a general insult for people that are going mask off.

    Much more fond of something that is inherently dismissive of the point like “go sleepy, baby”. Always mock the fascist.







  • Well, moving them is out of the question, since, you know, motion will change the clocks time. If you re-sync them, you bake the “error” into your framework. If you try a timer, the timer is offset. If you try and propagate a signal, the signal is offset. And eventually, you have to compare the two times, which muddies the waters by introducing a third clock.

    Basically, there is no way to sync two clocks without checking both clocks, ergo, no way of proving or disproving. That’s the premise.

    In practicality, I assume it is constant, but it’s like N=NP. You can’t prove it within the framework, even if you really, really want to believe one thing.