No, I am trying to clarify your position and have already given mine. If you were actually unclear, how did you expect a rebuttal to be taken seriously? Pick one, concede the other and we can go from there.
So, I'll ask directly. Are you a paleo-libertarian?
Can you express your viewpoint without questions or using my viewpoint for reference? Does your world view vanish if I am not around?
We're talking early boom? Like WW2 era? It was more industrial. If we are defining tech worker as a person that worked at a factory for technology, I am pretty sure there is a history of immigration there too.
I don't think we could cleanly say either way though, it would come down to nitpicking the definition of "tech worker". I have no real interest in that, and will grant you could look at it either way.
I am opposed to borders on a fundamental, ideological level. They are an expression of state violence prohibiting natural freedom of movement and trade.
I don't believe that is actually a commonly held capital "L" Libertarian belief though, and certainly would not associate myself with that party.
IDOR is a well known security issue that can result in exactly the scenario described (someone incrementing a counter in a url) and has on many occasions in different jurisdictions caused legal issues for the person doing it. Unless you are specifically asking for a hn reference, which I don't understand the relevance but I'm sure they exist.
> the main crowd are wannabe master manipulators. also, they can often be distilled to a couple chapters, not sure why they're so long.
Yes! Very similar to my own criticisms. It's thinly veiled authoritarianism. Nobody handing you one of these books is ever doing it for your benefit despite framing it that way. The message always is, "this is the behavior I expect out of you".
As to the content density, they all tend to ape Dale Carnegie's work. Carnegie himself borrowing heavily from Ben Franklin, who actually had a lifetime of interesting anecdotes. If you don't have that, you spin out 80 pages worth of filler.
Yeah, I got something similar from Gemini as the first sentence which could be taken out of the larger context easily. The overall answer is very balanced, I assume it was here too.
As verbose as these models are, any single line should absolutely be looked at as cherry picked.
A generation ship is probably doable with some level of conceivable technology. We just have to figure out how to be self sufficient out there then we have all the time in the world, or universe. That's a big "just", I know.
I had books that I scoured from the visiting nurses book sale every year and phrack. That's not much different than yt or ai. I guess there was less direct context with the books, but grasping the basics got you further.
Nope, I never heard that. It doesn't surprise me one bit though. I found his talks sort of robotic, and having caught a handful, very rote. I always thought he didn't have the demeanor of the person he claimed to be.
It was just simpler back then. There was no aslr, no hardware level protection from execution, traffic was all plaintext, switches didn't exist, or maybe they did but just nobody used them and everything on every network was just one giant collision domain, developers by and large didn't even think about securing software outside of DRM, and absolutely nobody understood the basic premise that someone on the phone may be lying to your business to get access to things they want.
The skillset that made you a 1337 h4x0r in the 90's makes you a mediocre sysadmin these days.
10 years and they'll be mid way into their conference talk career. You know, that sweet spot where you can keep telling the same story over and over and still get attention for it.
That makes me wonder what Frank Abagnale has been up to recently.
Heh, yeah. They have always been chasing quarterly numbers, they just stopped asking, "what do we have to do to sell the next version" and took their customer base for granted.
Now, if it has moved in the other direction since 2022, I don't see anything countering that either and I certainly can't speak to the current state of things and will believe you (mostly because I have no intention of looking deeper currently). I will say that's a strong indicator that the process of being called out on the international stage worked though.
I agree that scale is often overlooked in these discussions. The real value of current legal definitions isn't just in identifying the industrialized murder of a population, but in recognizing the warning behaviors that precede it. It's crucial to identify when a situation starts moving in that direction.
To be fair, Gregory Stanton has had the US listed as problematic for awhile now and he's considered a top authority on the topic. Of course his reports are based on the definition from the UN Genocide Convention which you don't seem to hold in high regard.
I would suggest that the strict etymology of a word doesn't really matter much in geopolitics, at least not as much as legal definitions arrived at via international consensus.
Legal status of these chemicals is not going to prevent your neighbor from getting them and becoming addicted.
Legal status (along with stigma associated with it) does prevent them from getting help before completely crashing out. It has the additional side effect of whatever portion of their lives they come out of it with being completely destroyed by the legal process. You know, because chronic illness obviously deserves punishment.
So I guess the real question is: what is the goal? Help chronic illness, or punish people that do things we don't like?
Also, don't we already have laws for literally all the bad things someone can do while addicted? If not, then why is it bad just because they are suffering from a chronic illness?
It doesn't need to make clones into absolute copies of them to be problematic. It's just an obfuscation of a very old idea, the divine right of kings.
It could be argued they would likely be worse than the original. They would be even more detached from the rest of humanity because of their position. They wouldn't be just a person that found an extreme level of success, they would be the undying legacy of that person. This is not a way to build a healthy human psyche.
So, I'll ask directly. Are you a paleo-libertarian?
Can you express your viewpoint without questions or using my viewpoint for reference? Does your world view vanish if I am not around?