sweng

joined 1 year ago
[–] sweng@programming.dev 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I would sooner use Windows before using Fedora

Why?

[–] sweng@programming.dev 2 points 1 month ago

You would be vulnerable on Windows, if you were running CUPS, which you probably are not. But CUPS is not tied to Linux, and is used commonly on e.g. BSDs, and Apple has their own fork for MacOS (have not heard anything about it being vulnerable though).

[–] sweng@programming.dev 1 points 1 month ago

Wait, which list of filtered IPs are you even talking about? The list in the article is a list of unique kernel versions, not IPs.

[–] sweng@programming.dev 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I'm not sure why you say it's "artificially" inflated. Non-linux systems are also affected.

[–] sweng@programming.dev 6 points 1 month ago (6 children)

this will affect almost nobody

Is that really true? From https://www.evilsocket.net/2024/09/26/Attacking-UNIX-systems-via-CUPS-Part-I/

Full disclosure, I’ve been scanning the entire public internet IPv4 ranges several times a day for weeks, sending the UDP packet and logging whatever connected back. And I’ve got back connections from hundreds of thousands of devices, with peaks of 200-300K concurrent devices.

[–] sweng@programming.dev 1 points 1 month ago

As said, that's a truism. What possible reason would one have to say it?

[–] sweng@programming.dev 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I honestly was wondering if the person also meant things thst are currently illegal when they said adults should be allowed to do "whatever".

Saying "adults should be able to do whatever is legal" is a truism: you are by definition allowed to do anything that is currently legal, so it's pretty pointless to write a message supporting that. Thus, me asking for clarification.

You are the one who stepped into the conversation, told me to join the military, and acted strangly aggressive.

[–] sweng@programming.dev 1 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Another poster said that adults shold be allowed to do "whatever".

I asked if this "whatever" includes many things that are currently illegal, even if everyone involved consent to it.

You then told me to ask that question again after serving in the military, and i then told you that I already have served. Then you wrote a long anecdote that I honestly missed the point of.

[–] sweng@programming.dev 1 points 1 month ago (6 children)

You telling me that’s justified?

No, I'm not, and I'm not sure why you think I am.

[–] sweng@programming.dev 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (8 children)

I've already served in the military. What question am I supposed to ask again? Or do I need to re-enlist first? I'm not sure they would accept me at my age anymore.

[–] sweng@programming.dev 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

But the point is that just because you are old enough to vote, doesn't mean you are necessarily mature enough to make certain decisions.

One could well argue that if the reason we are not allowed to heroin is related to health, or crimes due to addiction, then an 18 yo should not be allowed to use it, but a 90 year old would. I would even argue that we might want to allow hard drugs to 80 year olds, who probably can take responsibility by then.

[–] sweng@programming.dev -2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (12 children)

you are old enough to drink, own a gun and whatever else

Does that include e.g. doing hard drugs? Are you also allowed to e.g sell hard drugs, or e.g. potentially harmful products, such as power tools without certain currently legally mandated safety features if the buyer is an adult? Are you allowed to sign away certain rights that you are currently not allowed to sign away, e.g. should an adult be allowed to sign themselves over to slavery without the possibility to undo it?

view more: next ›