Welcome to Incremental Social! Learn more about this project here!
Check out lemmyverse to find more communities to join from here!

9bananas

@9bananas@lemmy.world

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

9bananas ,

your source is exclusively about aggressive behavior...

it uses the term "arousal", which is not referring to sexual arousal, but rather a state of heightened agitation.

provide an actual source in support of your claim, or stop spreading misinformation.

9bananas ,

you made the claim that the cathartic hypothesis is poorly supported by evidence, which you source supports, but is not relevant to the topic at hand.

your other claim is that sexual release follows the same patterns as aggression. that's a pretty big claim! i'd like to see a source that supports that claim.

otherwise you've just provided a source that provides sound evidence, but is also entirely off-topic...

9bananas ,

and your source measured the effects of one single area that cathartic theory is supposed to apply to, not all of them.

your source does in no way support the claim that the observed effects apply to anything other than aggressive behavior.

i understand that the theory supposedly applies to other areas as well, but as you so helpfully pointed out: the theory doesn't seem to hold up.

so either A: the theory is wrong, and so the association between aggression and sexuality needs to be called into question also;

or B: the theory isn't wrong after all.

you are now claiming that the theory is wrong, but at the same time, the theory is totally correct! (when it's convenient to you, that is)

so which is it now? is the theory correct? then your source must be wrong irrelevant.

or is the theory wrong? then the claim of a link between sexuality and aggression is also without support, until you provide a source for that claim.

you can't have it both ways, but you're sure trying to.

9bananas ,

not necessarily, but it can be a good idea to have a distributed, tamper proof ledger of transactions.

that way anyone can provide proof for basically anything to do with the service: payment, drive, location, etc.

it might also have advantages from a security perspective for riders and drivers.

there are advantages, they're not entirely necessary, but they may well be the best option for a distributed network (i.e.: no central server infrastructure, at least not beyond some simple software repository for downloads/updates)

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

    •
    9bananas ,

    +1 for everything: literally saves my sanity

    9bananas ,

    so you're basically saying it talked itself squarely into uncanny valley?

    i honestly didn't consider that would be an issue for LLMs, but in hindsight...yeah, that's gonna be a problem...

    9bananas ,

    Doesn't work.

    [citation needed]

    9bananas ,

    that's not how this works.

    YOU made the claim, YOU back it up.

    I'm not doing your homework for you.

    9bananas ,

    I'd say it's worth a watch!

    kinda gives a different perspective on the world it's set in (until the end, where it gets very "the boys"-like, but not in a bad way)

    9bananas ,

    there's probably already a tamperMonkey script out there, check greasyFork or something

    9bananas ,

    actually, that's not what the law says.

    the law says that "overcoming" security measures is a crime. nothing was "overcome".

    plaintext is simply not a "security measure" and the law was applied wrong.

    there may have been some form of infringement in regards to privacy or sensitive data or whatever, but it definitely wasn't "hacking" of any kind.

    just like it isn't "hacking" to browse someone's computer files when they leave a device unlocked and accessible to anyone. invasion of privacy? sure. but not hacking.

    and the law as written (§202a StGB) definitely states that security measures have to be circumvented in order to be applied.

    that's the problem with the case!

    not that the guy overstepped his bounds, but that the law was applied blatantly wrong and no due diligence was used in determining the outcome of the case.

    9bananas ,

    actually, the law leaves remarkably little room for interpretation in this case.

    here's the law in full, emphasis mine:

    Strafgesetzbuch (StGB)
    § 202a Ausspähen von Daten
    (1) Wer unbefugt sich oder einem anderen Zugang zu Daten, die nicht für ihn bestimmt und die gegen unberechtigten Zugang besonders gesichert sind, unter Überwindung der Zugangssicherung verschafft, wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu drei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.
    (2) Daten im Sinne des Absatzes 1 sind nur solche, die elektronisch, magnetisch oder sonst nicht unmittelbar wahrnehmbar gespeichert sind oder übermittelt werden.

    the text is crystal clear, that security measures need to be "overcome" in order for a crime to have been committed.

    it is also obvious that cleartext passwords are NOT a "security measure" in any sense of the word, but especially in this case, where the law specifically says that the data in question has to have been "specially secured". this was not the case, as evident by the fact that the defendant had easy access to the data in question.

    this is blatant misuse of the law.

    the data law makes no attempt to take into account the intent of the person, quite differently from when it comes to physical theft, which is immediately and obviously ridiculous.

    you mentioned snooping around in a strangers car, and that's a good comparison!

    you know what you definitely couldn't be charged with in the example you gave? breaking and entering!

    because breaking and entering requires (in germany at least) that you gained access through illegal means (i.e.: literally broke in, as opposed to finding the key already in the lock).

    but that's essentially what is happening in this case, and that is what's wrong with this case!

    most people agree he shouldn't have tried to enter the PW.

    what has large parts of the professional IT world up in arms is the way the law was applied, not that there was a violation of the law. (though most in IT, like i am, think this sort of "hacking" shouldn't be punishable, if it is solely for the purpose of finding and reporting vulnerabilities, which makes a lot of sense)

    9bananas ,

    it's...factual, tho?

    do you not want to be called human either?

    what do you prefer? dog?

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • incremental_games
  • random
  • meta
  • All magazines
    •