Oh, look, a post on Lemmy about Windows. I’m excited to engage in a unique, nuanced discussion about the topic of the post!

So glad I’m not on Reddit where people just repeat the same predictable thing over and over then jerk each other off.

(I use Linux too. But I hate seeing copy+paste Linux shilling on every Windows post. It’s preaching to the choir and uninspired.)

Better to have ads pushed down our collective throats than let collectivists have us by the throat. An ‘unregulated’ market lets us choose whether or not to use them, instead of justifying their necessity to avoid censorship.

The most secure & economical option is to never go outside

As a network security expert, I’ve got that on LOCK

Thank God for cars. Imagine riding public transport and getting felt up/robbed/harassed. Glad we can all agree on this Lemmy 👍

Obviously this is the worst of both worlds, but it’s a weird flex to support cars.

Hunter2

lol whoops. I do like the idea of that tho.

Partners are the stupidest fuckers on the planet. I won’t name names, but I have sicced my governance team on fucking http (NO S) websites, usage of certificate pinning, public-facing databases! (Protected by a shitty 2000’s-era username+password login interface) transferring credit card numbers in CLEAR TEXT. I swear I’ve seen every possible idiotic move from partners.

Banking network engineer here: Never give out your login details. Not to your mom. Not to your brother. Not to me. Not to a company. Not to a random guy in India. Don’t do it.

Yeah, I mistyped part of the sentence. Should have been “without some serious effort or illegal methods.” Serious effort is well beyond most ISP’s. They aren’t sniffing wireless AP’s then busting down doors to find out if its a 5g AP or an AP using their network. I actually know quite a bit about WiFi signals. I happen to be certified in Meraki (CMSS). If the uni said “no wireless signals” that would be a completely different story.

Robust but complex solution:

1. Set up an encrypted VPN at the router level. Any encryption will work, even weak dumb encryption is fine. Any attempts to decrypt it would be mad illegal.

2. Turn off your SSID.

It is now functionally impossible to detect anything about the traffic or the Wi-Fi router without some serious or illegal methods.

Sure, people might not care, but that doesn’t change the facts. Experts aren’t denying the legitimacy of the Panama or Paradise Papers, but they are saying that the idea of megacorporations secretly listening to your microphone and selling you products based on that is false. If they were doing that, it would be pretty easy to find out. Smartphones aren’t some mysterious black box; security engineers and hackers are constantly checking for these kinds of exploits. If corporations were actually spying on us through our phones, it would be the biggest topic at DEFCON. Believing that this could be kept secret would require assuming that all these experts are either paid off or in cahoots with the corporations, which veers into full-blown conspiracy theory territory.

The reverse is just as true:

“People are lazy and life is easier when you just blindly hate things you don’t understand.”

As a network engineer, it’s frustrating to see laymen make outlandish claims about technology with their source being “corpo bad”. I hate corporations too, but it would be an absolute bombshell if it were true. There’s just no possible way that every single hacker and security engineer are in league with the corporations.

ai new

new bad

remember old time

old time good

That’s not from the supreme court ruling. That’s an opinion piece. It holds no meaning over the ruling. Political fear mongering.

But notably, it does shield them from prosecution for crimes which are tangentially related to their official duties. For example, granting a presidential pardon is an official duty. Taking a bribe in exchange for that pardon would be a crime. But now the president is allowed to openly and blatantly take that bribe, because the bribe is tangential to their official duty, and they are therefore shielded from prosecution.

Not at all. While granting a pardon is an official duty, taking a bribe in exchange for a pardon is a criminal act. The decision does not shield the President from prosecution for such criminal conduct. Criminal acts are just as prosecutable as there were prior.

Excerpt from the ruling:

“As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. The principles we set out in Clinton v. Jones confirm as much. When Paula Jones brought a civil lawsuit against then-President Bill Clinton for acts he allegedly committed prior to his Presidency, we rejected his argument that he enjoyed temporary immunity from the lawsuit while serving as President. 520 U. S., at 684. Although Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure that the President’s decision making is not distorted by the threat of future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not support immunity for unofficial conduct. Id., at 694, and n. 19.”

Unofficial conduct includes taking bribes.

Many experts disagree with the second half of your sentence, because ordering an assassination could easily be argued to be an official duty; After all, the POTUS is the commander in chief of the military. According to this ruling, ordering it illegally would be protected, because the illegality is tied to the official duty.

“Many experts” isn’t someone I can talk with or argue against. They’re just weasel words.

Ordering an assassination is illegal. It violates the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the constitution (as they deprive persons of “life, liberty, or property” without fair legal procedures and protections). as well as Executive Order 12333 in which assassination is explicitly deemed illegal.

Who decides what is “official,” or “unofficial?” Oh, that’s right, Federalist Society planted judges.

The distinction between official and unofficial acts is largely guided by precedents set by the Supreme Court. Cases like Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) and Clinton v. Jones (1997) provide frameworks for understanding the scope of presidential immunity and the nature of official duties. It’s not just something they drum up out of nowhere. Judicial review and precedent are used for building out what constitutes official duties.

This is exactly why i’m asking people to read the ruling that I linked for your convenience It doesn’t even talk about bribery. At all. People are just saying things without doing any effort to source/reference/research what they’re talking about.

Hey so there’s some echo-chambery stuff going on in Lemmy right now, so I want to provide some clarification:

1. The court decision did not create a new law. It provided clarity on laws already in place. Presidential immunity is not a new thing. It’s a well established power. See: Clinton v. Jones (1997), United States v. Nixon (1974), United States v. Burr (1807), Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)

2. The court decision does not expand on the law either, it clarifies that:

The President has some immunity for official acts to allow them to perform their duties without undue interference. However, this immunity does not cover:

• Unofficial acts or personal behavior.

• Criminal acts, (to include assassination).

The decision reaffirms that the President can be held accountable for actions outside the scope of their official duties. It does not grant blanket immunity for all actions or allow the President to act as a dictator.

People who are giving opinions based on what they read on Lemmy instead of going and reading the supreme court opinion that is totally online and right here for you to reference are spreading misinformation and fear.

That’s why I play DotA 😎

(Yes, this is a cry for help)

He didn’t spend half of the meme writing about the hours spent on forums trying to get each game to work.