Also, it seems dangerous to suggest rejecting studying a specific area because the scientific tools and our understanding around it are currently limited - this is what science is for after all. If we thought this way, we wouldn't have nutrition research.
> It could mean "I'm lonely, so I think unlike everyone else." This doesn't make a lot of sense. Would people do it out of spite?
Makes sense to me actually: I wouldn't say it's even necessarily conscious, but the less you interact with others, the more you can become set in your own ways and create pathways to seeing your beliefs as truths.
I am (and esp have been) pretty lonely, and this is it, there's no sanity tests for thoughts. In good situations, other people provide a grounding, stabilizing influence. Without them, the mind has to do this by itself, leading to some pretty extreme overcompensating and "just so" stories.
I read one analysis of those who saved/hidden Jewish people during WWII. They tended to be socially isolated people, a bit outside of society. That is what allowed them to not fall to group think and to overcome fear. (The analysis was done by some Jewish institute).
I suspect it's a needed trade-off between security and practicality. I have no idea how "needed" it is though, can someone shed some light on this? Also, couldn't Signal add their own encryption layer?
Signal could add app-level encryption, but who would this serve? Signal can't do anything better than what the OS/hardware provides in terms of encryption. Even if they let you specify your own signal-specific password/encryption key:
* Non-technical users either won't use it, or will use a weak key
* Technical users are better served by making sure their device is secure and hard-locked with a strong passcode (tip: 5 presses of the lock button on iPhone wipes in-memory encryption keys, essentially exiting "AFU mode")
> (tip: 5 presses of the lock button on iPhone wipes in-memory encryption keys, essentially exiting "AFU mode")
Is this the same thing as holding down the lock button and one of the volume buttons on one of the newer iPhones? I'm referring to this doc: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208076
Yes, it's basically a side effect of activating Emergency SOS. The five-press shortcut works on all iPhones as far as I'm aware. As the doc says:
"If you use the Emergency SOS shortcut, you need to enter your passcode to re-enable Touch ID, even if you don't complete a call to emergency services. "
I have an iPhone X and I have it set to not use FaceID for unlocking the phone itself.
But I temporarily enabled it now to test. Maybe I am pressing the power button wrong but rapidly pressing it five times does not prevent it from allowing FaceID to unlock the phone. Whereas power plus volume up button does indeed.
Btw, when I normally have FaceID disabled from unlocking the phone, does it wipe in-memory encryption keys when locked with a single touch to the power button or not? I was assuming that it did, but I realized now that this assumption might not be correct.
Was looking into this yesterday as I have a bunch of containers running on my media server. Found this tool: https://github.com/aquasecurity/trivy which allows you to easily scan your images for vulns. Anyone have other recs?
Nice. I like the (shortest) output of this one better. And as opposed to trivy, it was able to detect the packages (and 1 vuln) in ghcr.io/linuxserver/swag.
It doesn't become safe when you're offline, it's just that you're no worse off than you were. OCSP is s a certificate revocation protocol. It's only used for disabling certificates which were issued in good faith but now need to be revoked. Suppose Apple signs application X, and the signature is good for a year. Six months later, Apple discovers that application X contains malware, so they revoke the certificate. However, your computer doesn't know about the revocation until it checks the OCSP server, which requires you to be online. If you're offline, it just skips the check; the certificate wasn't revoked yesterday, so it's probably fine today too. The bug is that if you're connected to a network but can't contact the OCSP server (either because the OCSP server is down, or because you're not connected to the internet) then OSX keeps trying to connect and becomes sluggish and/or unresponsive. This is how we know that it's a defect rather than a deliberate choice; if they had decided to make the OS non−functional unless connected to the internet they would have done a better job of it.
It wouldn't surprise me if they one day wanted to require you to be online 100% of the time so that you can't skip the OCSP checks on applications, but I don't think that would go over very well. Apple wouldn't even be the first to produce applications that refuse to work if there's no internet connection. If you don't like the thought that they might one day spring this on you, I recommend investigating Linux.
Which, as your parent seems to not realize, is also a political stance. This dichotomy is exactly what MLK refers to in the Letter from a Bermingham Jail (i.e. positive vs negative peace).
What does this mean? If this is yet another “if you’re not for us you’re against us” argument (e.g. if you don’t discuss police violence in the workplace then you necessarily support police violence), then this is false on its face. If this means “the decision to not discuss politics—especially politics unrelated to one’s work—at work is itself a political decision” then fine, but what’s the point? Is the idea that it’s a self-inconsistent position? If so, how? One can discuss even the policy not to discuss politics at work without discussing e.g. police violence.
one inconsistency is that Coinbase is based in SF. Would you consider "sorry, I didn't get a lot of sleep due to police sound grenades going off until 3am" a political statement?
> > Would you consider "sorry, I didn't get a lot of sleep due to police sound grenades going off until 3am" a political statement?
> No, of course not.
Awesome. So it follows that you would have no issue then with a coworker stating: "Police activity in SF has negatively impacted my ability to do work". Congratulations, you have a significantly broader definition of acceptable workplace speech than Coinbase.
> Awesome. So it follows that you would have no issue then with a coworker stating
Of course I wouldn't have an issue (ignoring for the moment that you're apparently conflating me with coinbase), because this isn't a political statement.
> Congratulations, you have a significantly broader definition of acceptable workplace speech than Coinbase.
The issue was never about people expressing their political opinions, but their demands that _Coinbase_ express political opinions and get mired in what police in SF may or may not be doing.
I think this is a very simplistic take. The reason we’re seeing a crackdown on this is not because companies are making a political move to support the status quo. It’s because they’re trying to weed out and get rid of legitimately problematic and toxic people who abused the previous culture.
For instance, there was an instance not too long ago at Facebook where one engineer publicly attacked another completely peaceful coworker on Twitter because the latter declined to put a BLM statement on the landing page of an open source project they maintained. The former employee was eventually fired. These kinds of antics are deeply divisive and destructive to the workplace.
> For instance, there was an instance not too long ago at Facebook where one engineer publicly attacked another completely peaceful coworker on Twitter because the latter declined to put a BLM statement on the landing page of an open source project they maintained. The former employee was eventually fired. These kinds of antics are deeply divisive and destructive to the workplace.
It is unclear from your comment which employee was fired, unless "former" is intended in the ordinal sense (ie. "first") rather than temporal (ie. "prior"). Can you clarify?
My wife works for a huge social media company that you've definitely heard of, and some of her higher-ups have told her they're worried that the rise of employee activism is going to tear the company's culture apart. I told her she should tell them to follow Coinbase's example.
For an action to be "political" in a strong sense, its performer it needs to be consciously thinking about their political alignment. Majority of people are economically motivated and do not engage in in-depth analysis of their actions or inactions and thus describing their actions as "political" is quite tendentious.
you don't need to be actively aware of gravity to not float off the ground. You can act politically without being aware of that fact, that just means you're not conscious of what's driving your decision making.
Most politics and also culture expresses itself tacitly. By requiring some sort of conscious intent you're actually ignoring what is arguably the vast majority of political interaction. For example casual sexism and systematic mistreatment of women was just "normal" but nonetheless political. Of course the people doing the subtle discriminating don't like to think of it as political, because that implies responsibility for action.
You are taking a "consequentialist" stance implying that if something has political consequences, then it is political. There are several problems with this.
First, literally anything could have political consequences, from a solar flare to a fly landing in someone's hair. This logic easily devolves into absurdity. Famously, Chinese government under Mao declared sparrows "public animals of capitalism" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_Campaign
Second, when anything could be political, the moniker "political" (like any other inflated moniker) loses a lot of its meaning. And yet real politics is still done by real people with real consequences.
Third, raising everything to the status of political is an example of politicization. This is typical of totalitarian regimes. Totalitarian regimes are in fact characterized by the fact that literally everything is raised to the realm of political, the realm of rule by the regime. By pressuring others to be political, you are creating a totalitarian environment, a very unpleasant environment for most people to be as we already know from some very bitter 20th century lessons.
Fourth, politics is about having political enemies. When political enemy (opponent) does not exist, there is no politics as such. By insisting that people act politically, you are simultaneously insisting that they have enemies. There are profound moral problems with this, whether you are Christian or even not religious at all.
The solar flare isn't political obviously, but the response to it is. human disaster usually is the consequence of bad responses to catastrophes which have been declared inevitable. (see the current American covid response). Something that actually is in the realm of politics is shoved into the category of thoughts and prayers.
>Third, raising everything to the status of political is an example of politicization. This is typical of totalitarian regimes
Politicisation isn't bad and the only thing your post is any evidence of is the typical midbrow "no politics or gulag" logic that every conservative American who is afraid of engaging in political conflict has been repeating ad nauseam. You may think you appear smarter if you complain about tribalism every five minutes and act like you're above the fray, but you are not. It's just a silly straw-man made by people who are afraid of political change.
Respectfully disagree. You're essentially arguing that they're not politically motivated in staying at/leaving their job. That's fair. Nevertheless their actions translate either support, inaction, or opposition. The implication which MLK argues is that inaction is harmful to the movement.
You are taking a consequentialist stance, deciding that if something has political consequences, then it is political. But literally anything could have political consequences. A solar flare could have political consequences. A fly landing on someone's hair could have political consequences. This does not mean that flies are political!
If everything is political, then the moniker "political" is meaningless.
> If so it’d turn around a long held belief that STEM education is biased towards men. At least in grade school.
No, you can't infer this conclusion from that paper.
Yes, the paper claims that there exists some bias towards girls (from teachers' grading). And the sentence you quote claims that without that specific bias, the gender gap would be in favor of boys ("12.5% larger"). However, we do not know if this figure is free of bias (IMO, fair to say probably not). Therefore, there might be other biases in STEM in favor of boys that could explain the gender gap in their favor.
It's unlikely. You're suggesting there's an even bigger bias but one which we've been unable to quantify scientifically to even a limited extent (compared to this study, which provides clear evidence)
reply