- Registrado
- 28 de Dic, 2014
So she's claiming she's a stupid dumb idiot?
Social Justice Warriors - Now With Less Feminism Sperging
- Iniciador del tema José Mourinho
- Fecha de inicio
-
🚨 DDoS attack. Tor is stable: https://kiwifarmsaaf4t2h7gc3dfc5ojhmqruw2nit3uejrpiagrxeuxiyxcyd.onion/.
🔎 Please read my article, How to Dox Anyone: A Liz Fong-Jones Story. (Xitter), (Substack). -
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
So she's claiming she's a stupid dumb idiot?
- Registrado
- 6 de Jun, 2018
Yandere Science
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 1 de Ene, 2018
Which is hilarious, because Economics is a science, and it's original detractors were fags who thought "slavery > supply & demand" as far as productivity went. Which is no different from "centrally planned economy > free market" imbeciles.
Corbin Dallas Multipass
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 20 de Jun, 2018
Ugh, don't get me started on the weird ideas people have about science. It doesn't help that there are legions of "scientists" desperate to get on TV so they'll spice things up to make them appeal to "normal people".
So they'll talk about how we are X years from Y technology. Which is obviously bullshit, at best a wild guess. But people repeat that shit as gospel. "We're 20 years from sentient robots". "In 30 years humans won't have pinkies anymore"
It's also good to separate science from "science". Meaning, some actual science yields measurable numbers, and can be checked. It's always right, or it's wrong, the end. Real science is able to be predictive, and when it can't be, we say it must be wrong.
Then there's "science" where humans observe something and make guesses about what's going on. There are no measurable numbers available, this is stuff like economics, psychology, the soft sciences.
People consider those two things to be the same, and they're not. One is definitely true, trust us, we've checked, and the other one is maybe true, but we'll change our answer if new data shows our old answer was wrong.
So they'll talk about how we are X years from Y technology. Which is obviously bullshit, at best a wild guess. But people repeat that shit as gospel. "We're 20 years from sentient robots". "In 30 years humans won't have pinkies anymore"
It's also good to separate science from "science". Meaning, some actual science yields measurable numbers, and can be checked. It's always right, or it's wrong, the end. Real science is able to be predictive, and when it can't be, we say it must be wrong.
Then there's "science" where humans observe something and make guesses about what's going on. There are no measurable numbers available, this is stuff like economics, psychology, the soft sciences.
People consider those two things to be the same, and they're not. One is definitely true, trust us, we've checked, and the other one is maybe true, but we'll change our answer if new data shows our old answer was wrong.
- Registrado
- 28 de Dic, 2014
It's great at predicting things that already happened.
- Registrado
- 4 de Jun, 2018
Forget Siri. I use gaming AI as a fast-and-loose metric of how 'smart' artificial intelligence is.
And there's a reason TVtropes (love 'em or hate 'em) has an entire section dedicated to 'artificial stupidity'. Heh.
The stuff about computer coding is funny too, because I have a book titled 'Secrets of a Super Hacker', by a guy who (presumably) was an old school hacker. And according to this guy, at least 80-90 percent of successful hacking does not involve typing rapidly on a keyboard; it's dumpster diving, social engineering, and preying on security 'seams' in a system.
But then, you probably knew that shit already
- Registrado
- 28 de Dic, 2014
I'm not sure if that guy is legit, but whether or not he is, that's more or less what Kevin Mitnick said. Of course, Mitnick himself largely relied on social engineering rather than any particularly amazing technical knowledge. With nearly any computer designed with security at all in mind, the weakest link is at the keyboard.
Yandere Science
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 1 de Ene, 2018
It's more like physicists trying to observe, describe and predict the behavior of protons and electrons when each one of them has their own personality, you aren't allowed to study them too closely, they can lie, cheat, and you are never allowed to isolate them, or the variables that are probably affecting them, for individual study; while the assholes in chemistry and biology, along with the government, are also trying to manipulate both the control and experimental groups in different ways without anyone noticing, then harassing you into changing whatever results you get, and heaven forbid your results end up separating the behavior of said subatomic particles by color.
It's still a science, it's just that almost everyone involved in the process is an asshole.
There's a lot of vary basic shit beyond "basic supply & demand" that economics manages to nail well enough. That people would go on the news to lie about it, doesn't change that fact.
- Registrado
- 26 de Nov, 2018
Kevin Mitnick is an amazing guy to read about, and if anybody has any interest in hacking and social engineering I recommend his books to read. It will just blow your mind how exploitable humans are.
- Registrado
- 4 de Jun, 2018
Here's the book.
And while I can't swear the guy was legit, a lot of his stuff matched up with things I'd run across elsewhere. Technology marches on, but human foolishness is a constant. Some of the info is dated now (dumpster diving nowadays is pretty rare what with most companies paying for shredder services).
It definitely made watching Hackers (with Angelina Jolie and Jonny Lee Miller) pretty funny in retrospect.
- Registrado
- 6 de Oct, 2014
Someone needs to make posts about reclaiming the words to get these dingbats to start bleating about their "Idiot Pride".
- Registrado
- 7 de Feb, 2013
I like that it seems like her thought is “Just being a Muslim woman doesn’t earn me enough oppression points...what else is there? Not gay, not a tranny...OH! I’m really dumb! Nailed it.”
- Registrado
- 11 de Feb, 2016
She's not wrong though.
Ineedahero
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 8 de Ago, 2016
Should I start with any of his work in particular?
- Registrado
- 28 de Dic, 2014
The Art of Deception is his main well known book. He has co-writers for most of these so I suspect he really isn't much in the way of a writer.
- Registrado
- 18 de Mar, 2016
Ok dummy.
- Registrado
- 26 de Nov, 2018
Yeah Art of Deception, then just choose whichever sounds the best for you.
Corbin Dallas Multipass
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 20 de Jun, 2018
Forget Siri. I use gaming AI as a fast-and-loose metric of how 'smart' artificial intelligence is.
And there's a reason TVtropes (love 'em or hate 'em) has an entire section dedicated to 'artificial stupidity'. Heh.
The stuff about computer coding is funny too, because I have a book titled 'Secrets of a Super Hacker', by a guy who (presumably) was an old school hacker. And according to this guy, at least 80-90 percent of successful hacking does not involve typing rapidly on a keyboard; it's dumpster diving, social engineering, and preying on security 'seams' in a system.
But then, you probably knew that shit already
And most non-social engineering hacking is trying to see if the programmer failed to limit the number of characters in an input field so you can overflow into other memory areas. It doesn't seem like any actual hacking involves rapid clacking at a keyboard. Maybe when you're writing your script to jam a bunch of garbage into 20 input fields at once, but not during the hacking.
I've also yet to see a flaming wall image or a laughing skull and crossbones appear on my computer screen, which I was led to believe was a common occurrence on the 'net.
- Registrado
- 17 de Ene, 2018
I linked Metafilter in another thread, and a thread popped up. It seems a few users felt the advice area, Ask MetaFilter, could be nicer. There was some agreement. Some discussion of what could be done to encourage that. You'd almost think this wouldn't devolve into people arguing about how they had a moral obligation to bully and pile-on anyone for wrongthink and for being Nazis.
You would, of course, be wrong. I'd screenshot certain parts if I knew how to do it properly, but just know it includes discussion of how people describing themselves as blunt is a tool to oppress women, how a strongly moderated website is also a haven for Nazis and TERFs around every corner, and how one bad person who was banned half a dozen years ago still makes certain users feel unsafe.
MetaFilter is very SJW-heavy, and the few commenters who point out that maybe all the REEEEEing at anything and everything might not be helpful slowly but surely get overtaken by the REEEEEEers claiming they have to be assholes online or the Nazis win. The parallels with places like ResetEra and Something Awful is striking.
You would, of course, be wrong. I'd screenshot certain parts if I knew how to do it properly, but just know it includes discussion of how people describing themselves as blunt is a tool to oppress women, how a strongly moderated website is also a haven for Nazis and TERFs around every corner, and how one bad person who was banned half a dozen years ago still makes certain users feel unsafe.
MetaFilter is very SJW-heavy, and the few commenters who point out that maybe all the REEEEEing at anything and everything might not be helpful slowly but surely get overtaken by the REEEEEEers claiming they have to be assholes online or the Nazis win. The parallels with places like ResetEra and Something Awful is striking.