Not to me. Scanners in that era weren't half bad. They were far from good by today's standards.... But to me it looks like someone took this picture with a film camera and this was a scan of a print.
Not a large print. But a print. Maybe a 5x7?
MystikIncarnate
joined 1 year ago
Well, that's certainly a creative opinion on it.
That's the problem, right there.
Companies either don't allow for IT oversight of accounts or charge more for accounts that can be overseen. Companies don't want to pay the extra, if that's even an option on the platform, so some passwords end up being fairly common knowledge among the IT staff.
As for your computer login? No thanks. Microsoft has been built pretty much from the ground up to be administratable. I can get into your files, check what you're running, extract data, modify your settings, adjust just about anything I want if I know what I'm doing. All without you realizing that I've done anything.
Companies like Autodesk really don't have that kind of oversight available for accounts that they're willing to provide to an administrator that's managing your access. I should be able to list the license that you've been given, download whatever software that license is associated to, and purchase/apply new licensing, all from a central control panel for the company under my own administrative user account for their site, whether I'm assigned any software/licensing or not. They don't. It makes my job very complicated when that's the case.
In the event you brick your computer (or lose it, or destroy it, or something.... Whether intentional or not), I sometimes need your password to go download your software and install it, then apply your license to it, so that it's ready to go when you get your system back. You might lose any customizations, but you'll at least have the tools to do the job.
On the flip side, an example of good access is with Microsoft 365. You're having a problem finding an email, I can trace the message in the control panel, get it's unique ID, set your mailbox to provide myself full access to see it, then switch mailboxes to yours, while I'm still signed in as myself, find the message you accidentally moved into the draft messages folder and move it back to your inbox. Then remove my access and the message just appears in your inbox without you doing anything. I didn't need to talk to you, I didn't need your password... Nothing. No interaction, just fixed.
There's hundreds of examples of both good and bad administrative access, and it varies dramatically depending on the software vendor. In a perfect world I would have tools like what I get from exchange online for all the software and tools you use. Fact is, most companies are just too lazy to do it, instead of paying the developers to do things well, they'd rather give the money to their shareholders and let us IT folks suffer. They don't give a shit about us.
People literally do this though. I work in IT and people have literally said, out loud, with people around that can hear what we're saying clearly, this exact thing.
I'm like.... I don't want your password. I never want your password. I barely know what my password is. I use a password manager.
IT should never need your password. Your boss and work shouldn't need it. I can log in as you without it most of the time. I don't, because I couldn't give any less of a fuck what the hell you're doing, but I can if I need to....
If your IT person knows what they're doing, most of the time for routine stuff, you shouldn't really see them working, things just get fixed.
Gah.
Remember kids, adblock stops more than just the ads you see.
Also, fuck yeah I'd download a chicken tender.
If you intentionally load edge there's a prompt you can say no to that asks if you want it to continue to try to pull information from other browsers.
IDK if that will prevent this, but it's better than nothing.
IMO, this is underhanded at best. It's as if some middle manager was tasked with getting more people using edge and they thought to themselves that most of their oblivious parents/grand parents/brothers/sisters/cousins/friends/whatever don't really notice what browser they're using (and frequently they don't care), so let's just move them over to edge as seamlessly as possible and they just keep using it because they're too oblivious to even notice it's not chrome.
To be fair, they're right, but also that thought process is so morally bankrupt that it should be criminal. IMO, that a lot like replacing someone's Toyota Corolla with a similarly designed Ford with the same engine under the hood, overnight, and hoping they just keep using it.
I don't want to bash Ford here or anything, but they have very different ideas than Toyota on how to accomplish common tasks. They're "the same" but very very not the same.
A better automotive comparison that I'm aware of would be the Mazda 626 and the Ford probe. They used the same engine but were very different cars to use. They performed the same basic function, but it was a very different experience.
I had a 626 ES V6 back in the day. If I woke up one day to find that someone had swapped it for a similarly spec'd probe, I would be livid. I don't hate Ford, or the probe specifically, but I drive the 626. I know that car. I want to keep using that car. I don't care that the probe is "basically the same". Fuck off and give me back my 626.
I sadly spun a bearing on that 626 and when I heard the knock from the engine I knew it was time. I still miss that car.
But if the scammer is using a bot too, then it becomes a null sum, since the bot can have thousands of conversations at a time.
Spam bots should be taken down more than engaged with. If there's a real scammer on the other end, yes, absolutely, waste that person's time as much as you can, and as much as you like. People have made entire careers out of trolling them and I endorse it. Scammers are the worst people, taking the hard earned money of his people to try to convince them of a lie just to get their money. This is sometimes true with normal sales, caveat emptor and all that, but when the entire premise of the interaction is based on deception, then to me, it crosses over into scam territory (looking at you, entire duct cleaning industry).
Wasting time making a bot to talk to spam bots is not very helpful. If you can identify that they are not properly filtering their inputs, I would invite you to use an SQL injection and talk to them about little Bobby tables. But by using a bot of your own to talk to spam bots will have such a negligible impact on the harm that scammers have that it's basically not worth doing. Unless you can scale up your bot to the point of overwhelming the scammers bot into disfunction, it's not going to provide any real help to those currently being scammed by the bot. Scaling up to the point of getting the bot to malfunction, is also something I would approach with caution, since you have no way of knowing what that limit is, and in the case of cloud systems, the capabilities of the bot may scale far and above what any attack against them could reasonably produce.
If they're using cloud resources and you can verify that, then there's a good chance you can hit them financially if you push their bot to its limits since cloud compute resources are not cheap. If you can generate enough traffic for them that the bot scales up significantly, then yeah, you may be successful in forcing the scammer paying for that to shut it down. The trick is doing so without incurring significant costs yourself. It's still likely, however, that the scammer will simply abandon it (and not pay their bill), and restart the whole thing again later with a new telegram/whatever chat system account later that you won't be able to track down in a reasonable timeframe.
So it's somewhat insane to try, it's easy for them to change the bot to avoid your usage attack and difficult for you to keep track of them and which account they're using now.
We need to make it globally illegal to run these kinds of remote scam operations, and strongly prosecute anyone doing it. Their ill gotten gains need to be confiscated and sent back to their victims (as much of it as possible), and they should be imprisoned for a very long time.
As far as I'm concerned, this is the way. This is the only way. Legal reprocussions with strong penalties and strong law enforcement of those legalities is the only way to ensure that we crush this trend permanently. Most countries, even those where we see a lot of scamming coming from, have laws that enforce against scams; but the enforcement is very spotty, and IMO, the ramifications of being caught are far too light.
Right now, most civilians don't really have any good recourse beyond ignoring it. Scambaiters are pretty common and they're doing good work, even working with law enforcement to get these scammers behind bars, but even that falls far short of the action required to stop such things from continuing to happen. We need strong legislation agreed upon across international boundaries with full task forces to find and prosecute these assholes; we don't have that, and so it continues.
If you've thought of it, they've thought of it. Plainly, there are already scam bots floating around, most of the time engaging with them makes it quite clear that they are not actual people, as long as you're paying attention. Their side oftentimes is completely automated. Get paid send info. The "lifelike" messages they send are canned and only vary slightly from message to message.
I swear, we'll implement bots to "combat" this stuff and it won't do anything because it will largely just be bots talking to bots forever. There's already a nontrivial amount of internet bandwidth consumed by spam email that just gets thrown away as it arrives, now, more and more resources are going to be poured into having bots talk at eachother for centuries without getting anywhere.
! = Force
Meaning quit without saving. If no changes have been made, you can :q and that will work. If you've fumbled and made any change to the file, you'll need the ! to get it to quit without saving.
Welcome to the age of AAA. Authorization, authentication and auditing. Where every action, whether over the phone, internet, or video chat needs to be verified externally with some kind of AAA system before that action can be verified and performed.
In this case, calling them back on a known phone number to verify their intent, or pushing a code to them over text or a third party authorization system (like duo or something) is required before action is taken.
IT and security folks have been preparing for this shit since before AI deepfakes were a thing. The general public, thus far, has not appreciated the extra security we have been requiring and at many levels, they've actively and even publically spoken out against it, or outright refused to participate.
You are vulnerable.
I don't follow your logic.
He's saying that without the leading actors of the film being who they are - simply, the extremely talented people they they are - he wouldn't have had a movie in which to act (the Barbie movie) to shine and gain the honor of being nominated.
More to the point, him being nominated when they are not, is, in and of itself, ironic; on several levels.
His entire sentiment here is that they should have had recognition for their roles in a very culturally relevant film, in which they did really great work. They commanded the screen in a way that few can. The entire thing pivots around the leading characters.
Honestly, I couldn't give two fucks about how stacked the year was. If you examine mentions of films in news, social media, and other sources where people discuss movies, the Barbie movie would be mentioned a lot more than pretty much any other. And yet, the headlining character, played by an amazingly talented young woman, didn't get nominated?
Bluntly, I'm surprised his comments were this restrained. If I was in his shoes I would have told them to take their nomination and shove it. It clearly doesn't mean anything if they won't even give a nomination to Margot. Her performance was picture perfect as far as I'm concerned.
Maybe they just enjoy long showers and get peckish part way through.
You don't know them.
Your statements are very judge-y. Leave OP alone. If they want to eat in the shower, let them.