Even the snails are Illuminati now! /s

Sir, this is a Wendy’s

Might be an AI Bot?!

Just waiting for the definitive edition to release 🤞

the human population is very much reliant on animal sources to sustain itself

Do you have a source for that? What % of the global meat consumption is actually necessary and what is just for pleasure? And don’t get me started on food waste…

what is required to continue existing as a species

Do you mean scale up as a species? We’ve existed for how many thousands of years in a sustainable way?

the distinctive categories of pets and livestock are an unfortunate requirement of our current situation

A requirement for what? You said we need animals to sustain ourselves. What do we need the distinction of pets for?

People who treat pets animals as property are not good people.

FTFY

I’m not a militant vegan, I do make occasional exemptions for ethically sourced animal products. But the distinction between pets and other animals is just hypocritical.

Since they went extinct they really were in dire need of resurrection.

You know what would help? Steam releasing a console. Valve, please just do what you did with the Steam Deck and put it in a box, offer 2-3 variations of specs and refresh them every 3-5 years.

Weren’t microplastics found in plants already? Take that naturalists!

When using a metal spatula carelessly in a teflon coated pan just isn’t hitting hard enough.

deleted by creator

Ah cmon now, stop spreading conspiracy theories. They probably just couldn’t prove citizenship and were deported.

Why is this commentworthy?

Yes, you need internet to use the “smart” features of the TV. No, you don’t need internet to just use the TV. You can connect any device that is supported by the ports on the TV, for example a Raspberry PI with a DOS emulator or for example an Apple TV to replace the “smart” part of the TV.

I appreciate your reply and understand your perspective. I still don’t fully agree, it might be a matter of the point of view from which you look at this issue. But I think in essence we are on the same page.

Thanks for not abandoning the discussion!

I’m genuinely curious what you would call this and what distinguishes it from a vulnerability.

Leaving aside responsibility, the system could have been set up in a way that wouldn’t have exposed user data but wasn’t. This is now fixed and user data isn’t exposed via this method any longer. What is the right word for what it was at the moment this flaw was discovered?

I’d argue that it is still a vulnerability in this scenario. But point taken, it’s always important to find the root cause and not just put blame on the person who stumbled into the trap.

It sounds like she’s very upset that Dansup made it explicit that he was fixing this issue, thinking that even exposing it in commit comments (which as we know get way more readership than blog posts) would mean people knew about it, and the less people that knew about it, the safer her partner’s information would be since she is continuing to do this apparently. You will not be surprised to discover that I think that type of thinking is also a mistake.

I agreed with you at first because from your description it sounded like she was saying security through obscurity was a good thing. But that’s not the case.

What she’s saying in the blog post is that this a 0-day and should be handled according to the best practices for 0-day disclosure.

You have to decide if you want to

• publish the findings before the fix -> more people will know and exploit the vulnerability but users might be aware and may or may not be able to mitigate sharing even more
• publish the findings after the fix -> the opposite

I don’t pretend to know enough to judge which option is the best. But I can’t fault the blog author for pointing out that Dansup didn’t follow best practices.

deleted by creator

The reflection of d would not make a B. The reflection of D would.