I’m not familiar with taoism, and I do not understand the point you are trying to make. I’ve read the chapter on this site.

I think you are talking about this paragraph:

Therefore when Tao is lost, there is goodness. When goodness is lost, there is kindness. When kindness is lost, there is justice. When justice is lost, there is ritual. Now ritual is the husk of faith and loyalty, the beginning of confusion.

I don’t get what you are trying to say. Are you saying that Li is Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_(neo-Confucianism)), or in the quote I have, ritual? Are you saying I’m an advocate for Justice in the sense of this quote? I think you are either misunderstanding me (I know I am not understanding what you are saying since it is unclear), or ascribing a set of values to anarchism that doesn’t line up with what I’m arguing in order to dismiss my argument.

To be fully clear, I’m going to elaborate on what I’m saying. I’m giving a simple cause and effect statement here, not some moral justification. When there is a liberatory movement that threatens the power structure that enforces hierarchy that oppresses people, those in power will use their position to make the movement, threatening tactics/techniques of, or other things done by the people of the movement illegal, necessitating breaking the law to continue. Working within the shifting bounds of law is insufficient.

Yes, but since most people for whatever reason believe that you can fight the state only by the rules the state makes, you won’t be able to do anything about it.

I agree. As an anarchist, I do not think following whatever rules the state makes will ever be sufficient for achieving any liberatory goals.

They are doing this pretty intentionally. Tomorrow is always different from today. People have been complacent, while some other people perceptive of the future in a bad way have made plans for taking unprecedented power over societies.

This is why I advocate for decentralizing power (and the dissolution of all hierarchies and hierarchic power structures). The last thing I want is a despot using the current mechanisms of power and centralize everything, and have such an absurd amount of power.

You are saying this [cut quote about my advocacy of decentralization] as part of a discussion, but they are not discussing this with us. Public opinion won’t stop them. Only force will.

I agree. Every single movement that has gone against a component of the government required either violence, or backed, credible threats of it. The government will never reduce its power to the benefit of the people, even if that policy is popular.

You are absolutely correct, I’m just worried about one less barrier.

FOIA is great and all, and so are public records laws and disclosure laws.

But the state is gonna state, and when push comes to shove, social media will be another tool to manufacture consent, break up movements, and preserve itself over the interest of the governed.

I’m not concerned about the ability to FOIA shit about Twitter or Facebook’s algorithm, as much as I’d like to know about how it targets the content slop to its users. I’m concerned about how it will consolidate power into fewer hands, and how state sponsored social media will be abused. And I don’t think FOIA would ever reveal that if it happened.

Fuck nationalization of social media. Honestly, this is one of the worst ideas I’ve heard.

The idea that giving the government a monopoly on the biggest data hoarders is somehow better than having the capitalists own it is mind-boggling.

The government doesn’t need a warrant to search through its own data.

The last thing we need is to give the state more power over our lives, more insight into our lives, and more control over the narratives we learn.

Every time humans have centralized more power into fewer and fewer hands, nothing good comes from it. We need more decentralized forms of media, not more centralized forms.

This is why I did a “walkthrough test” when I had to write documentation on this sort of thing. I’m a terrible technical writer, so this shit is necessary for me.

I grabbed my friend who knows enough about computers to attempt this, but not enough about infrastructure to automatically know what I meant when I was too vague.

Took two revisions, but the final document was way easier to follow at the end

I’ve heard wazuh can do authenticated vuln scanning, but since I’ve scaled down my homelab and hardened it to a point that vuln scanning is not currently needed I’ve had no need to do so. I have a friend deploying wazuh at his job so I’m gonna have to reach out to him some time to learn how he is doing it once I start growing my lab again.

I use nuclei for networked vuln scanning, which is all I really need right now. Works well with community rules, but it is a cli application. I really like how I don’t need to deploy it on a dedicated device, I just run it using all rules on the subnets that I want to scan from my laptop, which I have plugged into a vuln-scanning network with open fw rules, and check back in half an hour. Once I get a few more raspberry pis, I’ll have one on such a network that I can just run a scan from.

Well, microsoft chooses bing for you sometimes

Maia Arson Crimew, one of my favorite hackers, is in a webring https://maia.crimew.gay

That’s making more sense to me, but my view of reverse engineering is 100% tainted by my work in SRE and hacking.

I work in the same way, but I’ve kinda forgot about using a calculator since the last few math classes I took forbid using calculators

As a kid who had a habit of reverse engineering shit, (malware analysis and ethical hacking my beloved) I genuinely don’t know you can reverse engineer an equation with a question and 4 answers, 3 of them which are wrong. Even with two questions, its still a crapshoot, and the amount of wrong to right answers seems a bit time consuming to use to try and figure out the real solution, much less the equation, in a reasonable amount of time needed to complete an exam.

If you have no desire to do rudimentary googling for a group project in college, that sounds like you aren’t a very helpful teammate. Last time I generated certs I used the first stack overflow result and was done in minutes, there’s no excuse.

It was a project requirement, PHI was processed by it, so yes, it needed a secure connection. I now realize I should have used mutual auth, but hey, I only learned about that after that project

We never sent actual data to it (the actually sensitive data used for training never left a secure VM), but the point of the course was to act like we were. Plus, setting up an nginx reverse proxy is simple, setting it up and getting certs from some ssl commands is a 10 minute task that appeases the project manager/professor with minimal effort.

I was doing a group project in college where we had a Linux server running some of our custom software. I asked a group mate who worked in IT to self-sign some certs so we could get https up and running for our next sprint demo.

He installed a fucking snap package to do it via certbot. On fucking RHEL. And that server was not hosting an internet-accessible service. And he didn’t know why I lost my mind.

I fucking LOVE soju

on a thread about someone having a weird issue with linux

someone shares related story involving troubleshooting for hours

“You’re really selling me on Linux. Sounds like a nightmare”

I run two APs, and a Unifi server running on a thin client linux server.

I have the U7, and the U6 extender that goes in a wall outlet

I have a few of their small poe powered ethernet switches, they’re great since I have a poe switch as a backbone I can put it near a group of devices in a room, like consoles, raspberry PIs, etc, and just not have to worry about much setup or powering yet another tiny device.

Highly recommend unifi devices

TIL Foucault wasn’t the first person to have that idea, I’ve always heard it referred to as Foucault’s Boomerang

I just use floppy disks

Collective will is just the myth that is used to legitimize the state

The state is also so much more than the will of the governed. To say that it is all there is to it would consider governments like those governed by the divine right of kings fo be stateless. Stalin’s Russia, or Kim Jong Un’s DPRK would then be stateless.