Random thought of the day
-
@boomzilla "I don't care who wins, long as you pay."
-
@Zecc said in Random thought of the day:
How many obsessive-compulsives resume counting down from ten after they wake up from general anesthesia?
<Raises hand>
Seriously, I can still remember how, when they put me under at age four for my tonsillectomy, they told me to "count backwards from a hundred by sevens", and thinking even then that "that's not going to come out even". More recently I seem to recall continuing one of those countdowns even while unconscious.
-
How do you upload your own set of "stickers" for WhatsApp?
Everytime someone uses them I want to reply with a TDWTF one.
-
@dcon said in Random thought of the day:
Are "Woke" people allowed to drink decaf coffee?
They don't need to wake up anymore, so yes.
-
@da-Doctah said in Random thought of the day:
at age four for my tonsillectomy, they told me to "count backwards from a hundred by sevens"
That's unfair. Most kids that age can't even count forward by multiples!
-
@topspin said in Random thought of the day:
Everytime someone uses them I want to reply with a TDWTF one.
?
-
@tharpa said in Random thought of the day:
@Zecc said in Random thought of the day:
@anonymous234 said in Random thought of the day:
Not to be confused with the Rocher limit, which is defined as how close I can get to gold-wrapped chocolates without eating them.
With or without someone watching?
-
@Gąska That Milky Way doesn't look barred. Whole picture's unreliable.
Why does Jesus have stars around him when the universe is in front of him?
-
@kazitor multiverse.
-
@kazitor said in Random thought of the day:
Why does Jesus have stars around him when the universe is in front of him?
Inventory.
-
@kazitor said in Random thought of the day:
Why does Jesus have stars around him when the universe is in front of him?
Because he's in the unobservable universe.
-
@dcon said in Random thought of the day:
Because he's in the unobservable universe.
The same universe where Windows Update works perfectly fine for @pie_flavor
-
@TimeBandit now it all makes sense! It works fine because he never bothered to check if it actually does!
-
So, I was pondering startup times when I came across this thread:
Then came upon this comment:
Can you imagine someone arriving on scene, turn on the computer, and to their horror:
-
I wonder if you can sue someone for knowingly keeping an insecure computer connected to the internet, that then gets infected and becomes part of a botnet.
Because you should. Both be able to do it and actually do it.
-
@anonymous234 said in Random thought of the day:
I wonder if you can sue someone for knowingly keeping an insecure computer connected to the internet, that then gets infected and becomes part of a botnet.
Because you should. Both be able to do it and actually do it.
I heard that in Germany, having unsecured Wi-Fi can make you responsible for all piracy that's done through your connection, even if you don't know who's done it or that it even happened.
-
@Gąska I think that it's how it is in France as well, or at least that was how it was supposed to be when the piracy law was passed (I don't know if it's how it was actually implemented in the end). You are deemed responsible of all piracy that can be tracked to your IP address, unless you can show that you have installed "reasonable" security measures. If you do, then you can then try proving that it wasn't actually you and that you were hacked, but since you've shown that you can't reasonably be hacked, good luck with that.
So essentially, it was a legalese way of saying "you'll get punished for whatever happens on your IP, don't even try claiming you were hacked".
-
@remi said in Random thought of the day:
So essentially, it was a legalese way of saying "you'll get punished for whatever happens on your IP, don't even try claiming you were hacked".
...while leaving a backdoor for Very Important People to avoid charges.
-
@Gąska Since investigations & enforcement of that law is down to a governmental agency that is directly under government's control (and is not police with its minimal safeguards), VIPs probably never even get charged at all in the first place...
-
@anonymous234 said in Random thought of the day:
knowingly
I believe this should be the keyword here. Now, clueless users is one thing, arguable as it may be, but what about software vendors that are aware (or have been made aware) of security problems, but fixes have not been made available? What about firmware? What about hardware bugs? Does that somehow absolve either party? Or both!?
The unprecedentedly rapid growth of computer industry was largely helped by the lack of oversight and ignorance of consequences in exchange for shareholder value and scientific curiosity in equal measures. Any tough legislation at this point is bound to cause at least as much inconvenience as it would potentially solve problems.
And the Wi-Fi example, if true, is probably quite simple in effect, and well defined - along the lines of: one must have secured the access using WPA2 method or better, with sufficiently strong password. And that's it.
Can you reliably define what an insecure computer should be, sufficient for court to levy a fine or an alternative measure? And if you think you can by including software updates in that definition, consider the latest track record of Windows Update.At this point I'm thinking there is no practical solution. Continuing to pile up band-aids is the best we can do.
TL;DR - I sort of agree, but Quixotic Ideas thread is
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in Random thought of the day:
Any tough legislation at this point is bound to cause at least as much inconvenience as it would potentially solve problems.
As we've seen with GDPR, which was basically about forcing everybody to make note what user data they're storing and where - and it still caused widespread chaos.
-
@Gąska
Exactly that. It's a good idea in theory that sites collecting data should be mindful about that data, but the result has been almost exclusively more stupid goddamn popups, a few lawsuits, and I feel not at all better about my information on the nets than before.About the only reason I support GDPR is that my darker side revels in the chaos it causes. I had hoped for more, though, so even that's been a disappointment.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity FWIW, GDPR has changed my browsing habits for the better somewhat. Whenever a site forces me to accept terms if I want to read, I quit. Whenever a site doesn't have a clear "no" button, I adblock the warnings, and it it breaks the site - I quit. In practice, it means I don't visit Tumblr or (((news))) sites anymore, which only made me save time and rage less.
-
@remi said in Random thought of the day:
You are deemed responsible of all piracy that can be tracked to your IP address, unless you can show that you have installed "reasonable" security measures. If you do, then you can then try proving that it wasn't actually you and that you were hacked, but since you've shown that you can't reasonably be hacked, good luck with that.
Guilty until proven innocent
-
@TimeBandit Exactly! I think that this was the exact reasoning that lead to this weird thing about securing your connection: you cannot legally be guilty of something until proven, so the law cannot just say that you're responsible for everything that happens with your connection. However, either you can prove that you actually secured the connection and then by definition if it's secure then this proves you've done it (or someone in your household but I think if the connection is in your name and you let someone else access it either you should track their use, or assume responsibility for what they do "in your name" so to speak); or you don't secure the connection, and then you're guilty of, well, not securing the connection.
I mean, it definitely is lawyerese weaseling to pin the blame on you without having to actually prove it, but I think in its own perverse logic, it does hold up.
Of course, the only real result of this law is that people who want to download stuff pay for a VPN elsewhere, and that's the end of it. I guess it's good for the VPN business (that is, foreign VPN business since by definition they have to be outside of France for this trick to work!).
-
@remi said in Random thought of the day:
I think if the connection is in your name and you let someone else access it either you should track their use, or assume responsibility for what they do "in your name" so to speak
If I lend you my car and you hit someone with it, am I responsible?
Fuck that stupid law
-
@TimeBandit Don't try to drag me into yet another sub-thread about traffic fines being sent to the car registered owner...
-
@remi said in Random thought of the day:
traffic fines being sent to the car registered owner
Here they're easy to fight: just ask for the picture proving you were at the wheel. Most of the time, the charges are dropped
-
@TimeBandit said in Random thought of the day:
@remi said in Random thought of the day:
traffic fines being sent to the car registered owner
Here they're easy to fight: just ask for the picture proving you were at the wheel. Most of the time, the charges are dropped
Depends on the country. As I recall, in France the car's owner is responsible for reclaiming the fine from the driver, and in Italy you're required to tell the police on who you lent the car to.
-
@PleegWat said in Random thought of the day:
@TimeBandit said in Random thought of the day:
@remi said in Random thought of the day:
traffic fines being sent to the car registered owner
Here they're easy to fight: just ask for the picture proving you were at the wheel. Most of the time, the charges are dropped
Depends on the country. As I recall, in France the car's owner is responsible for reclaiming the fine from the driver, and in Italy you're required to tell the police on who you lent the car to.
There's a thread for this...
-
Virtually anything practical can be called "the art of compromise."
-
@pie_flavor said in Random thought of the day:
@anonymous234 In my dorm room, you need a key card to open the doors on the ground floor.
You have a multi-story suite? How much do you pay for room & board, and how much of that is just for the room?
-
@anonymous234 said in Random thought of the day:
I wonder if you can sue someone for knowingly keeping an insecure computer connected to the internet, that then gets infected and becomes part of a botnet.
Because you should. Both be able to do it and actually do it.
Should what, though? Sue someone? Keep an insecure computer connected to the internet? Get infected? Become part of a botnet?
-
@kazitor said in Random thought of the day:
Virtually anything practical can be called "the art of compromise."
I don't agree, but maybe there's a middle ground?
-
I'm sure you've all seen videos where people leave traps for package thieves or similar stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoxhDk-hwuo&feature=youtu.beWhat I don't get is why we (as a society) aren't doing that on a massive scale? I mean having lots of "trap packages" on door frames, bait cars, even trap wallets on fake distracted tourists for pickpockets. Seems like a cheap and effective way to combat crime.
-
@anonymous234 Because you then get trials which spiral into discussions of whether the crime was very deliberate or if "anybody could be tricked into it", commonly categorized under entrapment.
-
@anonymous234 said in Random thought of the day:
I've reached the conclusion that the classic "x/10" rating system for movies and games is bad. Because it assumes there's an "absolute bad" (0/10) and an "absolute good" (10/10).
Even if that was theoretically true, in practice almost nothing approaches those points (absolute bad would be a blank screen I guess?). They're more of an unbounded normal distribution, where 99.9% of the values are in a small range, but the outliers can be much more far away.So: a better rating system would be x/10, where 0 is terrible, 10 is fantastic, but the values can into the negatives and over 10, so you can actually give a game 11/10 if it's even better than a 10/10 game.
Of course the potential for abuse is big and people would be rating games "9000/10 zomg lol", but oh well.
It's even worse when they ask for self-ratings in job applications or performance reviews. Like, what scale are they using? Logarithmic, or flat? If it's a flat scale, then all a ten would mean is that it's better than 90% of the others. A 1 would mean that it's worse than at least 90% of the others.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in Random thought of the day:
@Gąska Not to mention that even currently, a 7/10 is a horrible score, an 8/10 is a bad score, and a 9/10 is normal. Same goes for 5-star ratings: anything that's not 4.5+ is bad. And the distribution is bimodal: lots of 5's and 1's, few in between. And a 5-point scale is much better than a 10-point scale.
This is why I'm in favor of a binary rating system. You compare two items (such as two games) to each other. So all you're saying is that one game is overall better or worse than the other one.
-
@tharpa said in Random thought of the day:
@Benjamin-Hall said in Random thought of the day:
@Gąska Not to mention that even currently, a 7/10 is a horrible score, an 8/10 is a bad score, and a 9/10 is normal. Same goes for 5-star ratings: anything that's not 4.5+ is bad. And the distribution is bimodal: lots of 5's and 1's, few in between. And a 5-point scale is much better than a 10-point scale.
This is why I'm in favor of a binary rating system. You compare two items (such as two games) to each other. So all you're saying is that one game is overall better or worse than the other one.
But that's an unmakable statement. Not that star ratings are makable statements either. Games don't well-order. What should be done is selecting well-orderable axes and rating on the set of those. But no, your gamer attention spans will not hold for this, so you get stars.
-
@anonymous234 said in Random thought of the day:
Seems like a cheap and effective way to combat crime.
Four cell phones with data plans, hardware, custom-printed box... Pretty cheap indeed!
-
@Tsaukpaetra Well not that specific implementation obviously.
-
@tharpa said in Random thought of the day:
@Benjamin-Hall said in Random thought of the day:
@Gąska Not to mention that even currently, a 7/10 is a horrible score, an 8/10 is a bad score, and a 9/10 is normal. Same goes for 5-star ratings: anything that's not 4.5+ is bad. And the distribution is bimodal: lots of 5's and 1's, few in between. And a 5-point scale is much better than a 10-point scale.
This is why I'm in favor of a binary rating system. You compare two items (such as two games) to each other. So all you're saying is that one game is overall better or worse than the other one.
As long as there's only two games in existence.
-
Speaking of game ratings - is graphics quality still dominate component of overall score in professional reviews, or are we finally past that?
-
@Gąska No, now they're rated based on if they're inspired by historical events and characters, and if the work of fiction was designed, developed and produced by a multicultural team of various religious faiths and beliefs.
-
@Gąska said in Random thought of the day:
@tharpa said in Random thought of the day:
@Benjamin-Hall said in Random thought of the day:
@Gąska Not to mention that even currently, a 7/10 is a horrible score, an 8/10 is a bad score, and a 9/10 is normal. Same goes for 5-star ratings: anything that's not 4.5+ is bad. And the distribution is bimodal: lots of 5's and 1's, few in between. And a 5-point scale is much better than a 10-point scale.
This is why I'm in favor of a binary rating system. You compare two items (such as two games) to each other. So all you're saying is that one game is overall better or worse than the other one.
As long as there's only two games in existence.
No. You can use the transitive property of greater than and worse than to rate items among multiple raters.
-
@tharpa except greater-than isn't transitive for games.
-
@Gąska said in Random thought of the day:
@tharpa except greater-than isn't transitive for games.
In terms of ratings, it is. You can still have comments, but the actual rating is conventionally a numerical value.
-
@tharpa then you have unstable results strongly dependent on the order in which games are compared.
Edit: unless you mean we stay with the old 7-10 system, except relabel 7 as "Fallout 4" and 10 as "GTA5".
-
@JBert said in Random thought of the day:
or if "anybody could be tricked into it"
No.
Problem solved.
Next problem?
Long Answer: There are a lot more opportunities for crimes than crimes, therefore not everyone can be tricked into a crime. Shit, there are people where stealing a package is literally too much effort.
-
@xaade said in Random thought of the day:
@JBert said in Random thought of the day:
or if "anybody could be tricked into it"
No.
Problem solved.
Next problem?
How to convince lawyers.