aMockTie

u/aMockTie@piefed.world
1 posts · 157 comments

Recent posts

Recent comments

Oof, as someone who has legitimately struggled with that deeply dark place and thankfully survived multiple attempts, I have a hard time understanding why that subject matter is joke worthy. That's almost certainly a personal problem though.

on Scope · c/memes · 19 pts · 36d

That's disappointing to hear.

Do you know how strongly he has expressed those beliefs and/or have any references?

on Scope · c/memes · 32 pts · 36d

Nathan Pyle has such a consistent track record of hilarious observations. Thank you for the reminder to catch up on Strange Planet.

on Memeit squares · c/lemmyshitpost · 24 pts · 43d

So is it

(7-6)(9-6)
(7-11)(9-11)

Or

(6-7)(6-9)
(11-7)(11-9)

Or maybe

(7-6)(9-6)
(11-7)(11-9)

For the record, I am 100% taking the piss.

Also not defending Gates, but realistically it wouldn't have made any sense for him or anyone at Microsoft to say such a thing. The 640K barrier was not chosen by Microsoft or caused by DOS, it was a limitation of the 8088/8086 CPU that IBM used in the original PC.

It wasn't until the 80286 that the issue was partially solved, and then the 80386 and on where it was completely solved (though still required a lot of fiddling and manual configuration which was the fault of DOS' design).

Yawning is so fascinating. It's often contagious, even between humans and other animals, it's an involuntarily reaction and can happen repeatedly in quick succession like sneezing, and reading and/or thinking about it can trigger it (as has happened to me multiple times while writing this).

I can't directly answer your question, but what I can say is that it must be important as far as evolution is concerned. In addition to all of the above, it negatively impacts multiple important senses simultaneously, and to your point, we can somehow feel whether or not the yawn was sufficiently satisfying.

on *Permanently Deleted* · c/memes · 6 pts · 79d

I was serious, but I was clearly mistaken. I still don't understand the connection to Alan Watts, but I wouldn't be surprised if the connection is obvious and over my head.

on *Permanently Deleted* · c/memes · 6 pts · 79d

Thank you for sharing the original. I was clearly mistaken.

Seeing the image uncropped and in full resolution makes a big difference.

on *Permanently Deleted* · c/memes · -5 pts · 79d

I'm not sure what the "it" is supposed to be, and I don't understand how this has anything to do with Alan Watts, but this image has so many oddities that I think this entire post might be AI generated.

Top to bottom:

  • White oval with two black inner ovals. Different colors from the surroundings.
  • Odd creasing and curvature of what appears to be the rear of a vehicle.
  • Head position relative to the rest of the body makes no sense. The neck is conveniently hidden by the hair to try to hide this oddity.
  • Some sort of rat tail or spiral on the (stage) left shoulder and below.
  • A cat that appears to be under the skirt (presumably intended to be a reference to AFAB genetalia).
  • Overall odd proportions, apparently different sized thighs and legs.

HTTP is like a conversation with someone wearing a "Hello my name is X" sticker at a public party, HTTPS is like a conversation with someone proving their identity with a government issued passport in a private room. Anyone can write anything they want on the former, and anyone happening to listen to the conversation can overhear everything. On the other hand, the latter requires basic identity verification and can't be easily overheard.

With that being said, anyone can also obtain a passport. That means you can be sure that you are interacting with a John Doe, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you are interacting with the John Doe you were expecting. For example, John A Doe (e.g. Google.com) is different, but maybe difficult to notice from John E Doe (e.g. Goggle.com), especially at a glance.

I hope that helps.

I don't understand how this can still happen with a well known brand in 2026. Personally the microphone is the least concerning aspect of this finding, since a Bluetooth connection would still be required. With more dedicated research, the BadUSB aspect is far more concerning in my book. Plug the speaker into a computer, even once and only to charge, and the computer is pwned? Preventing any future patching? I don't know how I could ever trust one of these devices going forward.

Awesome write up.

Allowing arbitrary firmware updates without any signature validation, over Bluetooth, even unpaired and in sleep mode, and without any authentication is absolutely wild and should be criminal negligence.

It took Creative nearly two months to respond to SingCERT. Unfortunately, their response was that "they do not consider this to be a vulnerability, as it does not present a cybersecurity risk"

What a foolish response. The guy wasn't asking for money and gave them everything they would need to make a patched firmware.

Agreed.

I don't mind paying a reasonable price for access to SSO, especially if the service is fully provided by third-party infrastructure. For something that is fully self hosted on the other hand, a recurring cost for what should be a basic (or at most a one time reasonable fee) feature feels egregious.