dmesg

I edited and rephrased a lot of my posts and the other replies and maybe my though process is clearer now. I didn't word it all too well, forgive me for not being a native, I struggled to bring my point across in an enunciated way.

> I think there's a good question about whether people can tell you're anxious at a glance

Which is why I linked the nature article? It's plain obvious an interesting point I tried to make that "normal" people will instantly perceive someone as likeable or unlikeable. Which the article in the OP goes great lengths to discuss.

I mean I can live with people immediately going against my point, I just see they didn't even gave it 5 minutes of thought. Which is not necessarily directed at you, I cannot possibly convince anyone and reply to anyone at the same time.

The article describes how neurotypical people, i.e. the average Joe would come up with a decision to like or not like a person based on first impressions before the person being judged even talks. Fairly sure in an article about how people are thinking how they are perceived by others this is relevant. But I get it can upset people that it is out of their control entirely.

Curious, yet the most people suffering from anxiety as secondary comorbid psychiatric condition are the depressed, autistic and ADHD sufferers.

The article is definitely a mental health topic. A little harmless stage fright before a presentation is not real clinical generalized anxiety and affects most normal people.

Quote:

> Why else would someone be so anxious about how others see them?

The scientific consensus would tell the author that judgement in humans happens already the moment they see a person and it is immediate, even if the person not doing anything:

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep40700

>across three studies, we find that first impressions [...] made from thin slices of real-world social behavior by typically-developing observers are not only far less favorable across a range of trait judgments compared to controls

Edit:

Okay this was completely misunderstood. My point was that the "normal" people in the study immediately internally know if to like or not like a person. Hence why first impressions DO matter the most. Which is why I simply disagree with the argument in the OP that anyone has control over their perception.

You also cannot win people over if the most respected person in a group dislikes you. The others will follow boot.

The (very weak) Caesar cipher was used in ancient Rome though and cryptography in general way before. It could be a silent nod to how far our achievements have gone and that encryption is a basic human desire since millennia.

Caesar cipher anyone? Romans knew (bad) cryptography.

No surprise! I assume the average HN poster possesses more ethics than a tech bro. If you ever submit a post about your hobby I'd probably enjoy reading it. Love seeing people building their own 433 MHz antennas and adding stereoscopic cameras do drones. Is LIDAR a valid solution?

"There is no spoon", or if you prefer the post-modern Baudrillard'ian take:

"The territory no longer precedes the map, nor survives it. Henceforth, it is the map that precedes the territory - precession of simulacra."

There never was a crane, the maps didn't show one.

This, especially since I don't want to come off with tech bro vibes by asking "Would you like $thing?":

[YES!!!] / [Remind me later™]

Hey thanks for noticing and replying! I approve of your point to curate the members, this is exactly what a friend told me after linking him your post. Fittingly he posted an image of Machiavelli under his reply and I told him I don't see it in such a controlling way.

Thinking more about it, you see this both in forums and IRL: https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths (Minus the trolling aspect as in groups there is no anonymity as in a forum.)

Often rich people associate only with people of equal wealth in cigar lounges or country and golf clubs. It's to be expected many hidden filters apply to online and messaging culture as well. Your C.S. Lewis quote and idea of how this applies even to HN is very positive. Indeed I only could reply because I saw your article at the right time in my feed and happened to be online and browsing entries.

In the past I liked to read a lot of Scott Alexander Siskind, SSC/ACX and LessWrong, even if often disagreeing with some points. Don't be afraid to be wrong when blogging. It is an iterative process and to be honest, I would like a blogger who does a review of his old posts after a year and write where their opinions changed. Not in full, but selecting a few opinions that got refined over time. And don't fear your audience being small. Often I vote up content because it is different or prompted me to self-reflect.

That was a good read and it resonated with me from personal experience. Often the groups I was in were fragmented or I'd be suddenly invited into a second group with someone else removed. Glad it wasn't me, would have been too hard on me to realize I'm suddenly alone in a ghost group.

I wonder what the cut-offs are for "group is too small" and "group is too large", but that certainly depends on the subject the group is about. A philosophy book reading group probably doesn't work well with the bestselling crime novel audience.

Thanks for getting ahead of me. I add their competitor MS doing the same even more openly:

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/microsoft-swiftkey...

Always assume companies will gather, use and share your data in all ways they legally can. The burden of proof is never on the user that companies don't milk us. Calling it "misinformation" as someone further above did is bizarre. This is the default business model of big tech.

Okay this was a tough read even if not bad. Allow me to elaborate why I struggled reading it, especially with inanimate or non-thinking objects "having no incentive". A plant's genetic coding has a strong incentive on producing as much seed pods as possible (and some plants want to be eaten by animals enjoying the fruit around it, so their faeces spread the seeds across the earth). Plants are competitive in growing larger to have more sun than a moss cover that evolved to thrive even in low light.

Even a rock containing an ore had an incentive to form. The behaviour of elemental orbitals determines which phases and minerals crystallize first and last (see HFSE).

You can take this further that even sand dunes have emergent behaviour governing their formation and movement in a desert. Is everything still going to crap when we run out of energy and reach a final state of entropy? Sure! But this is one hell of a ride.

Now in regard to Doctorowian Enshittification: Companies favour short term solutions these days because they cannot function like something that evolved over millions of years to perfection. We started with probably 3 streaming services (for movies), now we have 30 and they wonder why we cannot pay each of them 55 USD as we had to with cable and 100+ paid channels?

They don't know (yet/ever) the real incentive is to find an evolutionary niche to thrive on. You can never cater to all tastes at once. Explain this: Why do most restaurants focus on one nationality? (the owner can have a different nationality and it still works). Now you have hit the jackpot to de-shittify.

I read the actual open access paper: https://opg.optica.org/oe/viewmedia.cfm?uri=oe-33-11-22154&s...

Note if you look at the paper, you notice a close but not entirely perfect normal distribution, but nothing you cannot fix with UDNs and Irwin-Hall. For reference how that is done you can read the bottom of this very useful RNG article: https://people.ece.cornell.edu/land/courses/ece4760/RP2040/C...

My overall verdict on the tech in OP is that it is amazingly promising!

Oh really?

https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366617630/German-court-f...

Actually the reality was the honeypots were illegal to use as evidence in court. So these criminals are now smarter and more dangerous as we taught them OPSEC.

The central problem here is this:

In the Physicists from 1961 (German: Die Physiker, F. Dürrenmatt) the central theme is that scientists cannot "uninvent" something. Encryption is here to stay. Mathematically proven. Period.

The criminals will just flock to the "real encryption" and not the honeypots/backdoored messengers as they are being caught. In the end word of mouth will spread: "This is safe, this is unsafe."

Just because a few Kremlin bots on Telegram are brainwashing people in the west, the west doesn't have to become North Korea.

Defending the innocent law abiding adult Joe, just wanting to send their honey pics in private is a distractor in this argument. I will not sacrifice my western standards just because 0.1% people are inherently evil.

Mill my own flour? I'd call that the "Carl Sagan fallacy" for the lack of a better name. We don't have to "[first] invent the universe from scratch to make apple pie". Even if that is what he literally said.

Imagine we could run the backup server backend self-hosted and FLOSS. Like Vaultwarden, the upstream bitwarden client API.

Even automatic backups run at intervals to cause less server load. The article says you absolutely have to write down your restore key too (They say notebook or PW manager).

It may seem obvious now, but I know most people will forget and be puzzled if their phone suffers physical damage. A lot about this has mandatory manual steps.

Speaking of 4chan, I actually found an IRL friend there through commenting on /g/. We both wanted to try the TOX messenger and its various spin-offs. Then we took it to Steam and now years later we know each other by face and name. We even have various different political views but never argued.

It may be a super low sample size but it's far from impossible. Especially Reddit has DMs/chat and it's way easier since you can contact someone without someone else impersonating the other party. Sometimes you gotta believe you are talking to just another human being. Love that the article in the OP mentions trolling. We all probably had moments where we did not act in the best way we could have.

To all those that act noble in the shroud of anonymity!

Update: The article also says it takes several hundreds of hours. That may be so, but I find the same time needs to be spent IRL to get to know someone. Usually a continuous effort can be just as much as linking a friend a good story and saying hi. People will engage conversation spontaneously when both parties want.

So you want 10,000 law firms run automated AI crawlers that churn through the server quota of mostly innocent people in the hope they can find something for a takedown?

I don't think so unless they pay my server costs. And even with "only" 1-5% false positives you will fry a lot of innocent people.

Does an attacking bot know your webserver is not a misconfigured router exposing its web interface to the net? I often am baffled what conclusions people come up with from half reading posts. I had bots attack me with SSH 2.0 login attempts on port 80 and 443. Some people underestimate how bad at computer science some skids are.

Yes and it makes reading your logs needlessly harder. Sometimes I find an odd password being probed, search for it on the web and find an interesting story, that a new backdoor was discovered in a commercial appliance.

In that regard reading my logs led me sometimes to interesting articles about cyber security. Also log flooding may result in your journaling service truncating the log and you miss something important.

Why? It was both: http://www.geschichteinchronologie.com/judentum-aktenlage/ho...

And the prison uniforms had even coloured triangles that revealed additional "offences" stripping people of their humanity.

I still don't understand what Anubis solves if it can be bypassed too easily: If you use User-agent switcher (i emulate wget) as firefox addon on kernel.org or ffmpeg.org you save the entire check time and straight up skip Anubis. Apparently they use a whitelist for user-agents due to allowing legitimate wget usage on these domains. However if I (an honest human can) the scrapers and grifters can too.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/uaswitcher/

If anyone wants to try themselves. This is by no means against Anubis, but raising the question: Can you even protect a domain if you force yourself to whitelist (for a full bypass) easy to guess UAs?

It's censored in Germany and likely the EU and UK. The package fails to claim unless you use Proton VPN or any other and fake being American. Claim your games with a throwie VPN test of any provider. Only downside is you need a gigantic bloated installer unless you have a *NIX machine.

Still a great deal, but I feel the cuffs of adult content censorships tighten. A giveaway that doesn't work without VPNs.. Thanks GOG for letting me fake my country of origin!

Edit: It took about 6 tries, but it didn't fail right away. Without VPN it fails directly. With VPN it shows a preview JPEG of the bundle and you need to click a 2nd button. Due to high demand they say it will still take time for me to receive them. Hopefully they will not remove it later on.

Right sorry the topic is very exhausting and I extrapolated my frustration, assuming you are interested, it came back in 2015 and was canned again in 2019: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorratsdatenspeicherung_in_Deu...

I am tired of Germany needing constant chemos because unconstitutional laws grow back. They pass faster into action, than you can excise them in Karlsruhe. The mechanism for Germany to self-heal is very very slow. This is an imbalance that makes it hard to fight such laws. They change a miniscule detail and it can pass a 3rd and 4th time.

It is against it and the law was revoked twice already by liberal politician SLS: 2nd March 2010 - 1 BvR 256/08 I don't like this rhetorical style were easy to prove facts are denounced with questions to evoke uncertainty.

If you now say this is not applicable as this is about storing connection data you don't understand the issue in full: This is a deeper incision than just storing connection logs. This violates a more fundamental right. We are talking about chats here. Not what IPs you connected to at what time (and that law was canned as violating the entire constitution, which i cited with the state's decision above). There is no middleground here.

That's a sensible choice, especially when it's not ready for production and a public release. Do your projects often later get made public too?