As a security professional… yeah, nope. Nope, nope, nope.
Win11 has many usability issues, and Windows seems to accumulate more with every design decision, but reaming your arse open for someone else to bugger you via an exploit run under your own account is not one of them.
A “regular bed” has always been an 8ft bed for the last 60-odd years. Look at any full-sized Ford, GMC, AMC, or Chevrolet pickup from the 70s, 80s, or 90s – it’s nearly impossible to find one with anything but an 8ft bed. If you wanted anything shorter you went with a “toy truck” like the Mazda B2000 to B2600i, or a Toyota Tacoma.
It’s just the utter lack of 8ft beds in full-sized modern (last 10-15 years) trucks that has had the industry reclassifying uselessly lobotomized truck beds as “regular” and normal-length beds as “extended”
There is nothing you’ve said worthy of rebuttal.
Ah - a sour grapes response!
Don’t worry, I know you had absolutely nothing to counter with once I saw the ad hominem. That’s the problem with intellectual bankruptcy, after all - nothing to work with except rage and other emotions. No facts, only feelings. So out come the personal attacks like the ad hominems, because rage and shame are the only usable tools left.
You’ve just been all over this thread with your misogynistic hot takes and telling people how “all women” act. You should get off the internet for a while.
Mmm-hm. Attempts to socially shame me into silence and an ad hominem on top of that, but not a whisper of a viable rebuttal.
That’s the problem with these censure attempts – always feelings over facts, instead of facts over feelings.
I’m not saying it’s right, just, or how it should be,
What makes it infinitely more worse is that almost all women fully and absolutely deny this happens, even when behaving exactly like this.
It’s why such near-ubiquitous behaviour - and women’s hypocritical denial of its existence - is widely documented within both redpill and blackpill writings, and is one of the core reasonings behind MGTOW.
Such overwhelmingly predictable behaviours are what make those philosophies so devastatingly effective and compelling long before anything even mildly misogynistic crops up… after all, facts and evidence that survive tests of disproof speak volumes. These philosophies would have no reason to exist if behaviours and double standards like this weren’t everywhere, and all it takes for a man to see them properly is for their societal brainwashing to be disrupted.
It sounds depressive.
It’s how “toxic masculinity” is forced upon men against their will.
Do we want to be sensitive and vulnerable? Sure!
Do we want partners that can accept that sensitivity and vulnerability? Of course!!
But when the vast majority of women do not do as they say, or say as they do, the calculus becomes massively brutal and clear-cut: either cram that shit down to where it will never see the light of day, or see it emotionally/sexually revolt our partner and possibly even make them leave.
I wasn’t commenting on this particular double standard anywhere as much as double standards in general; especially those which are almost exclusively one-way and “acceptable” for only women to hold. That a man trying to employ the same attitudes would be pilloried and castigated to the same degree that women would be lauded and supported.
Wow, that’s some intense double standards there.
That’s an odd way of saying “ubiquitous female standards”.
I’ve had two relationships with women immediately go downhill after I cried in front of them. It was like someone flipped a switch and turned off any physical attraction they had to me.
Can absolutely confirm this, myself, on a personal level.
Never let them see you genuinely vulnerable unless you want to drive them away, or want that to be weaponized against you at some point in the future. Sometimes even both, but never neither.
Only ever provide curated vulnerabilities that offer of themselves no true vulnerability, but satisfies any desire they may have to see vulnerability in you. Like being distressed at the sight of an unknown dead dog on the side of the road, for example. Clean, simple, controllable, and superficial.
Violate this tenet at your own psychological risk.
how many people agonize about female pedophiles vs male pedophiles?
What makes this statement even more horrifying is that more and more evidence is emerging that - like with cross-gender rape between adults - rates of pedophilia in the general population seems to be about 50/50 between the genders.
As in, it is equally as likely for a child to be preyed upon by a woman as a man.
And society doesn’t give two shits about female pedophiles or their victims. Hell, if the pedophile gets pregnant, the government will even gleefully re-victimize the victim on a monthly basis the moment he hits legal adulthood by forcing him to pay child support to their rapist.
Now, for the purest example of anti-male gender bigotry, examine the fury and outrage if the genders were reversed.
One is light hosting using VMs. It boots normally.
The other is for experimenting on various OS’ in VMs. It does not boot normally. Even before the 2nd CPU caddy, it always POSTed 10 times - no more, no less - with a memory error code before booting into the hypervisor. And yet, no issues with memory, no issues with RAM slots themselves. Or, at least, it’s affecting all 4 of the on-mobo slots equally.
Oh hey, another T7500 owner! You have the second-CPU caddy installed in that thing?
For safety, backups are much better than encryption.
The only thing encryption does is prevent others from reading your data if the machine gets physically lost or stolen. And ironically, that might prevent a stolen machine from ever making it back into your hands.
For desktops, encryption of a machine that doesn’t have critically private/sensitive content is even dumber. I mean, if you have terabytes of CP or are a terrorist, then sure, lock that down to make the police earn their wages. Or do it even if you don’t, but you just want to give authorities the middle finger.
But not much on the average computer needs encryption so long as you keep good physical and network security. And the problem with that is much of it is behavioural - they will need to learn how to not do dangerous things online and off.
In order to protect data is a good backup system - something that just works, is dummy proof, can be administered remotely, and which can restore content easily and reliably.
On a Mac, nothing beats iCloud. It’s encrypted before it even gets uploaded, and Apple has repeatedly shown it cannot retrieve the content… it needs to be forcibly cracked.
On the PC (both Windows and Linux) I prefer Duplicati backing up to BackBlaze B2.
Microsoft has painted users into a very dangerous corner. Security is vitally important, but not when it’s almost maliciously implemented.
Even as a security professional I understand that most people will be ill served by having their computer locked down like Fort Knox. There are ways of ensuring security without having all personal content go permanently poof with the slightest wrong move.
It wasn’t “Do not, under any circumstances, speak to a woman”
Actually, as explained to me by a woman, it was exactly that.
This was well after I had married, somewhere in my fifth decade, so I was off that particular playing field for quite some time by that point. But on a lark I had asked a feminist what this “leave women alone” refrain meant. And some of it made perfect sense: don’t hit up cashiers or anyone doing their jobs, they’re just being nice and friendly because they are being paid to be polite.
But it also meant don’t approach women when they’re shopping for groceries, as they’re probably tired from work and just want to go home. Don’t approach women on public transportation, as they’re just trying to get home and don’t want to be accosted in a cramped public venue. Don’t approach women when they’re out with friends, because they are with friends and don’t want to be cleaved off like how a predator isolates a member of a herd.
This went on and on, to some pretty ridiculous lengths. Whereupon I asked, “how is any man supposed to do an unsolicited approach to chat up a woman?”, to which she said - and no, not kidding at all - “They shouldn’t. Any man who we’re interested in will understand when we’re interested in them.”
Like… telepathy.
Literal
f**king
telepathy.
Sure as shit, this is what a woman said to me.
Most men get absolutely zero life experience in decoding super-subtle hints, and now they’re supposed to miraculously become an expert in navigating a potentially life-destroying minefield, where the only two outcomes is magically getting it right, or risking a non-trivial probability of incarceration and a criminal record when they (invariably) get it wrong?
No wonder so many men are saying “thanks, but no thanks.” That the juice - the outcome - is just no longer worth the squeeze - all the effort and risk that is shouldered. I don’t blame them in the least. They’re the smart ones.
And those who are slightly less smart are at least asking the $10,000 question: why aren’t women making the first approach? I mean, isn’t that what this whole “equality of the sexes” shtick was all about? Why don’t women put their money where their mouths are, and ask MEN out, for a change? Because I can guarantee that while any normal woman will experience a certain level of rejection, it will still be several orders of magnitude less than what a similarly-normal man experiences.
That’s why I was particularly clear about him being “not right”.
Because being abusive is definitely “not right”.
But sometimes you have to make a point and you just have no other way of doing so, because the deed is already done, and anything less shocking is just gonna get ignored wholesale. That foot-stomp has to be loud enough and clear enough to be heard even by the people in the back. And there are only so many (frequently limited!) ways of grabbing everyone’s attention by the nuts.
I don’t agree with how Linus handled it. But I can understand it.
reads the article
considers the triggers prompting the outburst
He’s… not wrong.
Not right, but definitely not wrong. There is a big difference between effective security and total security. He was dumping on total security, which in many ways is worse than no security at all.
It is Duplicati, and IMHO restores work best if they aren’t restores-in-place. As in, dump the restores in a central location then drag-and-drop the data into place. Most of the issues I have heard of involve restoring data and settings back to where it originally was backed up from, and restoring directly back to those places - other than fully user-controlled directories, such as Documents or Photos - seems to be problematic.
Other than that, I have been using it for nearly a decade and have done a number of restores - after total drive deaths, so not just accidentally deleted files - to great success.
The downside is that tweaking backups from within the hidden
C:\Users\[username]\AppData\directory involves many days of whack-a-mole to exclude untouchable normally-in-use files so you don’t get scads of errors in the backup process. Plus, there are a fair number of entries in there that don’t really need backing up. But once you get that to settle down, it’s largely smooth it’s-set-so-forget-it sailing.