Because a shit ton of fraudulent science hasn’t come out of the US or Europe. Nope. No sir.

Sure, it’s not a bad thing and it should be standard practice, but to act like encrypted traffic guarantees privacy is silly.

If you are implying that a government wants your data, they can just buy it or request it from the company directly. They don’t have to snoop to get it. Also SSL isn’t going to stop them.

The fact that anyone thinks they have any semblance of privacy when typing into an online AI chatbot is saddening.

Of course anything you type into a externally hosted AI is going to be harvested and sold.

But sure, in this case you are also potentially exposing your queries to your ISP or someone listening on your local network too.

Enterprise adopted 100GbE networking around 2019. You can now buy used network cards for around $100 each.

Lately, military “defence” usually just means oppressing the people of other countries.

This is dumb.

Even if you encrypt network traffic, the receiving server still knows what you’re doing. All it does is prevent third parties from snooping.

Usually.

we already did the protest thing

No, you really didn’t.

we’re tired now

Fuck off, libs really are just going to let Nazis march through the streets.

You simply don’t understand.

Far-right, ultra-conservative, and fascist are synonyms. There is no difference between these terms.

They all describe the same thing; fascism.

So… Authoritarian, and not far right… So… Not fascist.

Calling a government fascist, but not far-right is like calling Death Valley a lake. There’s no fucking water (anymore), its not a fucking lake.

Some people just don’t feel comfortable killing and eating animals. Let people live their own lives.

Anyways, less people eating animal products leads to lower prices for those who do (you).

“Can” does not mean “should”.

America has a long history of bullying Central and South America. The current situation is unfortunate, but not entirely surprising.

Or instead, form a union and demand better pay and retention incentives.

I guess we’re posting The Sun and The New York Post articles now…?

Yeah, containerization does make it much easier to just throw away the base system and start fresh. This way, you don’t have to worry about possibly straying the recommended upgrade path and accidentally breaking something.

More code adds complexity, complexity leads to more bugs, more bugs means more vulnerabilities. Virtualization takes a lot of code. With all this extra code, it is possible that you are actually expanding the attack surface instead.

It is likely inconsequential for most people just running a couple personal services at home, but organizations are pretty frequently targeted by sophisticated attacks, where the consequences of a breach can be severe.

Yes, many of these vulnerabilities are difficult to exploit, either requiring local access or the existence of another vulnerability to achieve local access.

However, there also exists a massive market segment whose entire business model relies on selling local access to VM compute resources, cloud server providers. An attacker could simply rent a VM on a vulnerable platform to gain the needed local access, launch an attack on the host and thereby compromise the other guests on the same machine.

There have been an incredible number of flaws found and fixed (for now) in the isolation provided by virtual machines. VMware had a spat of critical vulnerabilities in 2024.

Yes, it matters.

Also, the actual isolation of container environments varies greatly, on a per container basis. Containers are far less isolated than virtual machines, and virtual machines are less isolated than separate hosts.

Neither containers or VMs will will protect from attacks on the host, see regreSSHion. You may be able to limit access to your host by using containers or VMs, but container escapes and VM escapes are not impossible.

There is much time and effort required to maintain each of these layers. With “stable” distros like Debian, It is often the responsibility of the distribution to provide fixes for the packages they provide.

Given Debian as the example, you are relying on the Debian package maintainer and Debian security team to address vulnerabilities by manually backporting security patches from the current software version to whatever ancient (stable) version of the package is in use, which can take much time and effort.

While Debian has a large community, it may be unwise to use a “stable” distro with few resources for maintaining packages.

OTOH, bleeding edge distros like Arch get many of their patches directly from the original author as a new version release, placing a lower burden on package maintainers. However, rolling releases can be more vulnerable to supply chain attacks like the XZ backdoor due to their frequent updates.

I’m sorry, but there is no situation where it is permissible to stand idle as someone suffers an untimely and preventable death.

Even soldiers at war, captured in foreign territory without visas, are entitled to lifesaving care.

OK. So by that logic, let’s say you are touring Europe and have a heart attack. The paramedics are in the area and available, but refuse to take you to the hospital. You are left to die on the street.

You think you deserve such foul treatment?

When a government is informed that people are dying within its waters, and the gov has the capability to respond but deliberately chooses not to because the victims are “african”, you think that the government bears no responsibity for their deaths?

Is it really so different though? The outcome of both situations is the same. Migrants are dying, through direct action and deliberate inaction.

Mediterranean nations have the opportunity to protect lives, but instead they choose kill / let migrants die.