| diana_coman: | shrysr: no, lol; nobody can a generic thing like that really; ask better questions, you know? | [03:06] |
| shrysr: | diana_coman: lol.. i had to ask. | [09:06] |
| diana_coman: | shrysr: ask but learn to ask *better questions*; that thing there as it stands is on the level of 5 year old "questions" | [09:14] |
| diana_coman: | shrysr: basic logic: what does it take to invalidate a strong statement like that ("all")? | [09:15] |
| shrysr: | diana_coman: the strong statement being 'I can hack into anybody's computer' ? | [09:19] |
| shrysr: | well in front you... i do feel like a 5 year old. | [09:20] |
| diana_coman: | young again! :)) | [09:22] |
| diana_coman: | shrysr: and yes, the strong statement is "can hack *any* computer" | [09:24] |
| shrysr: | not being able to hack a single computer you come across? | [09:25] |
| diana_coman: | "strong" in there refers to a claim covering a full set | [09:25] |
| diana_coman: | not even come across; but simply a single negative example is *enough* to invalidate that | [09:25] |
| diana_coman: | conversely, to actually answer yes, one would need a *proof* that "for any X a computer, can hack it" | [09:26] |
| diana_coman: | before you can even attempt such a thing, you'd need to define computer and hack at the very least and even then I don't see how you'd go about any sort of actual proof | [09:28] |
| shrysr: | okay! :D I get you. Can you hack into my computer ? | [09:29] |
| shrysr: | and hack as in - gain control of it. | [09:29] |
| diana_coman: | lolz, no idea nor interest really; but why this interest in "hacking"? | [09:29] |
| diana_coman: | it's not one of those kids "hacking clubs" or anything | [09:29] |
| diana_coman: | note also that if I do have control of that computer, it's by definition *my* computer, not yours | [09:30] |
| diana_coman: | so you are effectively asking me if your computer is really *your* computer | [09:30] |
| shrysr: | :)) | [09:30] |
| diana_coman: | well, I don't know; is it? | [09:30] |
| diana_coman: | you'd better make sure it is yours if you work with it, I'd say. | [09:31] |
| shrysr: | its not my computer either... office :P | [09:31] |
| diana_coman: | well then, it's theirs so at least not your problem as it were but anyways. | [09:31] |
| diana_coman: | shrysr: why this sudden interest re hacking though? | [09:33] |
| shrysr: | well - hacking was always fascinating. For fun...really. Though I did not take a single concrete step towards learning how I cd do so, except signing up for some ethical hacking courses on udemy (and never doing them). I asked the question when I suddenly recalled that I met a guy 10+ years ago.... he logged into my facebook account, in front of me, on a laptop I'd never touched. He asked me to enter my | [09:36] |
| shrysr: | ID, turned around... typed in stuff and then there it was. | [09:36] |
| diana_coman: | shrysr: the boring part about hacking though is that it's ultimately this sort of "find the magic incantation that works...for now"; and then repeat; it is true that the whole mess that is "computing" nowadays is full of holes and so lots of incantations to find but ...it still sounds like a terrible waste of time to me unless you really are actually decided to burn everything down | [09:43] |
| diana_coman: | (nothing wrong with that, quite on the contrary but it's the only case when it's worth it) | [09:44] |
| diana_coman: | shrysr: at any rate, so did you find out at least how to log in to any facebook account? | [09:44] |
| shrysr: | no. he wd not tell me. | [09:50] |
| diana_coman: | shrysr: magic incantation, neh; ofc won't tell | [09:51] |
| diana_coman: | basically "power" through obscurantism; for as long as you make sure you live among idiots, you may be "powerful"; sounds like a terribly poor deal to make this being the mage of the idiot tribe but what do I know | [09:52] |
| shrysr: | yea... and he wasnt the type I wanted to be friends with despite a GREAT deal of interest at that time. | [09:52] |
| shrysr: | Yes... thats totally right. While this was impressive.... it became pretty clear after a bit that he was not truthful (most of the time) and very manipulative. | [09:56] |
| asciilifeform: | shrysr: the magical 'thief who can steal Anything!' only lives in cartoons. | [09:58] |
| shrysr: | And moviesss.... swordfish... Mr Robot ? | [10:10] |
| shrysr: | well atleast today - i know I can use i3wm to make my desktop look incomprehensible and exotic to the 'simple' people :D | [10:17] |
| diana_coman: | shrysr: I'm not much for movies really, esp relatively new ones | [10:18] |
| diana_coman: | that's not a tall order, is it; lol | [10:19] |
| shrysr: | diana_coman: I like to be able to forward through the boring bits myself. lol. | [11:25] |
| shrysr: | diana_coman: WoT revisited https://s.ragavan.co/2019/08/the-wot-revisited/ | [11:25] |
| diana_coman: | shrysr: you got feedback in #trilema from mp already | [11:26] |
| shrysr: | huh | [11:26] |
| shrysr: | oh | [11:26] |
| shrysr: | ok | [11:26] |
| diana_coman: | shrysr: doesn't your irc client notify in any way when your name is said? it should, set it up properly. | [11:26] |
| shrysr: | it does... I didnt notice really. | [11:27] |
| shrysr: | diana_coman: i think i should move on from the WoT for now and revisit later? I will add a comment to the post referencing mp's feedback. | [12:20] |
| shrysr: | diana_coman: is that ok? | [12:20] |
| diana_coman: | shrysr: yes. | [12:21] |
| shrysr: | diana_coman: ok. Do you have any more feedback ? | [12:22] |
| diana_coman: | it is markedly better anyway even if inevitably more vague - after all you *are* discussing it in general; | [12:24] |
| diana_coman: | shrysr: there are 2 things you should be aware of: | [12:24] |
| diana_coman: | 1. you switched from comparison X vs Y to "what is X" *silently* | [12:24] |
| diana_coman: | the silent part especially is problematic, don't change things silently! | [12:25] |
| diana_coman: | 2. while you switched to "what is X", this switch requires a different approach too and it's not clear you are aware of it | [12:26] |
| diana_coman: | specifically here if you focus on describing something, you would need to identify and mention at least any underlying principles (hence MP's observation that indeed, if you are to discuss it as a concept, you have to use the theory that is relevant | [12:27] |
| diana_coman: | shrysr: note also that feedback will come whenever/if someone has time /is so inclined; asking "do you have anymore" is at best impertinent | [12:29] |
| diana_coman: | while I like you and I am willing to help you, it does *not* follow that it's now my obligation or something. | [12:31] |
| diana_coman: | shrysr: if you are under some impression that you are doing me some great favours, better spill it out right now and be done with it, so we don't waste time. | [12:37] |
| shrysr: | diana_coman: i did not mean or think that you have any obligation. WHere does favor come into the picture ? If anything - you are doing me a favor by talking to me and I'm doing myself a favor by trying to follow what you say. | [12:40] |
| diana_coman: | shrysr: good then. | [12:43] |
| diana_coman: | shrysr: do you see how the "do you have any more feedback" does *not* align with what you just stated though? | [12:46] |
| shrysr: | diana_coman: asking you for feedback was not done with impertinence, and i have interacted with enough ppl to understand that ppl have lives and need not respond to me immediately. I was eager to know your thoughts, and perhaps it was unnecessary to ask...beyond the eagernes - i asked with the idea of capturing what you had to say in my notes, along with Mp's comments, as feedstock. In my experience, with | [12:49] |
| shrysr: | the ppl I've interacted - you don't get feedback unless you ask... repeatedly. | [12:49] |
| asciilifeform: | shrysr: smart folx are generally 'interrupt-driven' rather than 'polling-driven', if they have comments, will give comments, dun have to ask 'but are there more comments' | [12:51] |
| diana_coman: | shrysr: was your experience here so far: 1. "had to ask to get feedback"? 2. really all that similar to "the ppl I've interacted" with before? | [12:52] |
| shrysr: | diana_coman: no. And thats why i said 'perhaps it was not necessary to ask'... I shd have said not necessary to ask *here*. | [12:55] |
| diana_coman: | myeah. | [12:56] |
| shrysr: | asciilifeform: 'smart folx' may also be complex ppl with inflated egos who will keep their mouth shut unless asked with great fanfare and reverence for their opinion. I don't mean to imply it is applicable here. | [13:13] |
| diana_coman: | shrysr: by the sounds of it you really need to evaluate /clarify your context a bit better. | [13:16] |
| diana_coman: | and try not to carry "habits" without even examining them, especially across boundaries: some things are so fundamentally different that you'll come to grief here precisely for what was "needed" there | [13:19] |
| shrysr: | diana_coman: noted. | [15:23] |
| shrysr: | asciilifeform: re: the selection thingy how would I go about validating my theme? I have now tried 3 browsers, and 3 themes. the selection thingy works on all 3 themes on archive.is | [15:27] |
| shrysr: | asciilifeform: https://archive.is/ckbh9 for example. another theme. selection works there. | [15:33] |
| shrysr: | asciilifeform: I removed the modifications to functions.php and tried archive.is again >> the selection still works. tried a brand new theme and >> archive.is -- selection still works. so the modified argument for th RewriteRule is parsed and works as expected, and the problem is with functions.php .. ?~!? | [15:52] |
Comments feed: RSS 2.0