jerkface

joined 3 years ago
[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 month ago

demonstrably

so do it

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Of course not, why do you say that?

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

So you're going to insult me and my writing to my face for apparently no reason except that you get off on it, and then when I call you out on it, you're going to act like I'm the child. You know what? Fuck off, we're done. I'm not an AI or your mom that you can just take your shit out on and then carry on like nothing happened. Get fucked.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 month ago (6 children)

no ur slop

you say "corporate violation of personal rights" i say "basic journalism" agree to disagree

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago (8 children)

What's permissible in every relationship is different and I understand why that could be a real violation of trust. Of course, in general and barring some narrow exceptions, none of us have the authority to tell others what they may do with images of us.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago

You SAY that, but I don't see anyone trading manuscripts on FTP sites like it's 1995.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

That's the glib interpretation but it's more likely NetFlix knew we sucked all along and was acting accordingly than that they trained us only to watch one season.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

The only games you truly own from a pragmatic point of view don't even come on physical media, they come with public licenses. Commercial products that you come to love will always be used against you. Just stop engaging.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 month ago

Okay? So? Brand names exist to have a reputation. A random string of characters isn't trying to develop and trade on a positive reputation and so is automatically suspect.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago

If security is the one and only priority, you wouldn't be running a goddamn desktop environment and all that other baggage. You absolutely would be auditing your entire stack. Because security is the one and only priority. I didn't pose the hypothetical, but that's the necessary consequence.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (7 children)

If your system is secure, updating it can only make it insecure. If that is your one and only priority, you have to review updates before applying them, and since you have thoroughly investigated your entire stack up to this update and that version also has your real-world testing behind it, you're probably not going to apply most updates until some other priority comes along or you discover a previously unknown vulnerability.

view more: β€Ή prev next β€Ί