sphericth0r

joined 1 year ago
[–] sphericth0r@kbin.social -1 points 8 months ago

Google be in trouble then

[–] sphericth0r@kbin.social 3 points 8 months ago (7 children)

I the FDA can't even keep up with trying to approve legitimate pharmaceutical drugs, let's not task them with looking at random s*** too.

[–] sphericth0r@kbin.social 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I know, Congress should be ashamed of themselves. We would be hard pressed to find a group that had a worse understanding of technology

[–] sphericth0r@kbin.social 26 points 9 months ago

I believe libel laws already exist, but when you're in Congress you must make laws in a reactionary way otherwise considered thought and reason might begin to permeate the law. We wouldn't want that.

[–] sphericth0r@kbin.social 2 points 9 months ago

I'm not sure why you take issue with the facts that the word aggravated in this context means that the people are implied, or that adding words is not easier to read. It's okay that you didn't know what aggravated means, but it still doesn't change the fact that this is redundant information. Redundant information is harder to read, and the specific gender of the victim does not add anything to the context for the headline, a de facto harder to read title. It's possible that this was done on purpose, or that the author was also unaware that aggravated means people are involved and felt they needed to add words.

[–] sphericth0r@kbin.social 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

You're right about the backyard but that would involve a person or people. If the discharge is aggravated, by definition it implies that people are involved. Adding the gender of the person that is implied is done for an emotional response from certain groups by not providing context that is useful. We fill in the blank with our biases.

[–] sphericth0r@kbin.social 2 points 9 months ago (4 children)

I think that they're saying that the person is implied, aggravated discharge of a weapon with no person involved is just target practice.

[–] sphericth0r@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's probably best to look at what the devops industry is embracing, environment variables are as secure as any of the alternatives but poor implementations will always introduce attack vectors. Secret management stores require you to authenticate, which requires you to store the credential for it somewhere - no matter what there's no way to secure an insecure implementation of secrets access

[–] sphericth0r@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

That's just as insecure lol, env vars are far better

[–] sphericth0r@kbin.social -4 points 1 year ago

Yes, and I find them indistinguishable from liberal subreddits. The echo chambers are pretty easy to find..

view more: next ›