Murdified

joined 1 year ago
[โ€“] Murdified@lemmy.sdf.org 24 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Left Behind. I'm probably a huge idiot for not realizing for the entire thing without knowing before hand what the context was, but I read it with the idea that it was some kind of apocalyptic sci-fi, and then only in the very last few pages of the book did it finally hit me in the face that it was religious doomsday bullshit. I do have to compliment it for the storytelling and world setting, but holy shit was I disappointed with the end direction ๐Ÿคฆ

[โ€“] Murdified@lemmy.sdf.org 30 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Well, for one, it's not known as "BSOD day" by any other customers that I know of. For two, there are contractual obligations, which prevents businesses from immediately pulling the plug and depriving them of funds, or from having knee jerk reactions, depending on your perspective. And finally, in just my own opinion, no other alternative solution provides a more compelling case for risk reduction without the same potential compromises even given the faulty deployment methodology that CS used. Sad, but true in my experience.

Needing kernel code for security sucks, don't have better options right now, encourage startups and take risks on them instead.

[โ€“] Murdified@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago

IDK, but the only explanation for something IDK is that it's a conspiracy!

[โ€“] Murdified@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Those are covers over additional lights to protect them from damage when they are not required.

[โ€“] Murdified@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago

I'm pretty sure the images are both trebuchets. The one on the left is still using only counterweights to provide energy.

[โ€“] Murdified@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 1 year ago

Yes, we had this ability all the way back in 2012 on the Galaxy S3, which had NFC and Wireless Charging built in to a user replaceable battery pack. It was available on many phones in that era and could easily be brought back if we gave up some "thinness" that we have now.

[โ€“] Murdified@lemmy.sdf.org 17 points 1 year ago

It's not as if they didn't still get paid under the previous model. It's just not conducive to a profit line that has to be on an incline forever, else be axed or forever altered, such as in this case. It's greed, pure and simple. They have to find a new way to make the line on a chart go up and people who are more interested in short term gain figured they can wait out the backlash storm and rake in more profit on other businesses that are already locked in. They're not dumb, they just aren't incentivized in anyway to be concerned for the long-term health of what they are built on.

[โ€“] Murdified@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 year ago

I do not like defederating instances for moral/ethical reasons. If that is the mission of the instance you join, so be it. I would only defederate as a last ditch effort to stave off technical or legal problems. Burggit plays in a grey area with the legal side, but I still wouldn't defederate until it's demonstrably causing a problem. I would also support defederating from instances where they are abusing federation to inflict harm on other instances/users.