Rewatching in preparation for the finale, and I keep feeling that the voice of Curzon Dax sounds quite similar to the voice of Odo in DS9. I’m quite aware that Rene Auberjonois passed away not that long ago: may he rest in peace. And I guess he was voiced by Fred Tatasciore (Shaxs), which I can hear too. But I keep hearing Odo which is really nice.
Enjoy your fascist dictator then
Yes? I’m not saying Michigan handed him the election, I’m saying protest votes and no-votes played a big role. We’re fucked due in part to people who say “ooh that will show the DNC”
Look, it’s such an exhausting night, and I really do believe that you want to see a better world. I do too.
I’m just so shattered that we’re looking at four years of chipping away at the rights of women, LGBT, and transgender people. Four years of degrading all the checks and balances against the president. Four years of political retaliations going unchecked. Four years of aggressive anti-climate policy, inhumane border policy, and pandering to a Russia (and now North Korea!) that is also slaughtering innocents in Ukraine. Four years of middle east policy that is at least as bad as Biden/Harris’s, but likely far worse. And four years of slamming our economy with tariffs to “own the Chinese” I guess.
A vote for Harris was a vote to make things better. Not everything. Good lord she wasn’t the answer to so many major issues facing the US and the world. But it was an objectively better vote, by every metric, than a vote for Trump, or a no-vote. I just can’t argue any more on that.
In many elections, that would make sense. But in this election, there was a sizeable group of Nikki Haley Republicans up for grabs, who clearly didn’t want to vote Trump if they could get an alternative. Is there a group of leftists who may have turned out in larger numbers if Harris had swung left? Yeah, maybe. But is that group anywhere near as large as the Haley Republicans, and are they present in swing states? No and no.
One Cheney convert in a swing state is worth a dozen liberals like me in California lol. Swinging right is the rational political move for the leftmost candidate. Swinging left is the rational political move for the rightmost candidate, which is why we saw Trump clumsily try to soften his stance on abortion.
I mean, I do? Trump massively outperformed Harris in swing states, so clearly Harris’s campaign wasn’t able to meet swing state voters where they are. Literally, these were the only people who matter in the US election under the current rules (sadly). Of course Harris swung right, and of course it didn’t work well enough, but not doing it would have been worse…
I hate politics as much as the next person, but god damn. Recognize the game is what it is, play it as necessary, and then move the needle where you can. Sheesh.
Watch an episode of DS9 maybe? Sisko is the literal embodiment of a person who is willing to make the tough choice that he personally finds unethical, but knows will be better for the world as a whole.
So then the logic here is “vote for a candidate who is at least as bad for Gaza, but will also fuck up the rest of the world”. Or “don’t vote for the candidate who will be obviously less damaging for the rest of the world, even though my action won’t help Gaza at all”.
Even if you assume Harris would have been just as bad for Gaza… I mean it’s patently clear that the only choice is to vote for the lesser of two evils and then raise hell that you need better policies from them.
The one thing I’ve learned from experience w/ Donald Trump is that he finds a way to make things worse.
Anybody who failed to vote Harris shares the blame, it’s fairly obvious lol
Florida’s cannabis legalization ballot measure failed…
And thanks in part to Michigan voters, we have a president who will fuck over Gaza even more. Great success.
Silicon isn’t the same thing as silicone 🤣
100% monitoring and control doesn’t exist. Your children will find a loophole to access unrestricted internet, it’s what they do.
Similarly, children will play in the street sometimes despite their parents’ best efforts to keep them in. (And yes, I would penalize Ford for building the trucks that have exploded in size and are more likely to kill children, but that’s a separate discussion.)
I get what you’re saying, I just think it’s wrong to say “parental responsibility” and dust off your hands like you solved the problem. A parent cannot exert their influence 24/7, they cannot be protecting their child 24/7. And that means that we need to rely on society to establish safer norms, safer streets, etc, so that there’s a “soft landing” when kids inevitably rebel, or when the parent is in the shower for 15 minutes.
This kills the clutch
Don’t hate the player, hate the game.
I’m confused, are you saying that it was the 11 year old girl’s personal responsibility to avoid being the victim of sexual abuse? Or are you saying that it was her parents’ responsibility to be monitoring her technology use 24/7?
Neither seems right to me…
Now the predators will just continue to do there thing in a darker hole that is even harder to find.
If it’s harder to find, then fewer children stumble upon it and get preyed upon, which is a good thing.
The reason is simple: in order to be a signed piece of secure boot software, the kernel needs to do everything possible to prevent unsigned code from running at the kernel’s privilege level, or risk its signing key getting revoked by Microsoft.
I assume your kernel is from Fedora and is signed. If your kernel, once loaded, allowed the loading of unsigned kernel modules, then any attacker could use it as part of an exploit that allows them to break secure boot. They would simply include a copy of the Fedora kernel, and then write a custom kernel module which takes control of the machine and continues their attack. The resulting exploit could be used on any system to bypass and defeat secure boot. In essence, secure boot is only as secure as the weakest signed implementation out there.
So, Linux distributors need to demonstrate to Microsoft that they don’t allow unsigned kernel code execution. Linux contains a feature called lockdown, which implements this idea. In order to be effective, lockdown must be automatically enabled by the kernel if secure boot is enabled. Interestingly, Linus flat out refuses to include the code to do that, I guess he disagrees with it. So a little discussed reality of secure boot is that, all Linux kernels which are signed have this extra patch included in order to enable lockdown during secure boot.
And that is why you can’t load an unsigned module when secure boot is enabled.
A pretty cool episode. Top takeaways:
Plenty more I missed of course.