The DMZ

Very much so, especially since they're otherwise indistinguishable from other underground hackers.

yep

I'm in the unfortunate situation where I often have to hang around them. :/

Anonymous

Yeah, I guess you can't really know who is and who is not.

I mean yeah I get wanting to do things for money, but at least the line should be when it hurts your fellow hackers!

Anonymous

Zerodium are a disgusting company. I cannot believe people actually sell bugs to them.

Anonymous

11:01 AM

Well, I can believe it; money.

It really is. And they aren't the only one. There are dozens of others.

Anonymous

Offer enough money & most people will bite.

Many government contractors like Leidos and Vencore.

And, of course Raytheon.

Anonymous

I am not against money or personal benefit.

I'm far happier selling to blackhats, spammers, or botmasters than governments.

Anonymous

11:01 AM

I completely understand that if you find a valuable bug of course you want to reach it's value.

Sadly the government often pays the most. :/

Anonymous

But when you're literally damaging the lives of potentially millions of innocent citizens for a paycheck

Anonymous

You're an awful person.

mhm

Anonymous

Pretty much how I see it.

11:02 AM

Even the worst of botmasters don't do the harm that a government's defense budget will.

Anonymous

Yeah.

Anonymous

Man, it really angers me.

Anonymous

What annoys me more is the people that genuinely don't think it's morally wrong.

Example: The Grugq.

Anonymous

Some people selling to companies like Zerodium know it's wrong and they do it anyways.

11:03 AM

He sells to governments (well, as a 0day broker) because he can.

Anonymous

Others genuinely think it's okay.

Anonymous

And that makes my piss boil.

Zerodium knows it's wrong first hand. They were originally VUPEN but were kicked out of France.

Anonymous

They are just as bad as people who condemn privacy advocates and do things to try and eliminate privacy and it's advocates.

Anonymous

Awful humans.

11:04 AM

Hell, I'd rather sell 0days to pedophile groups than government contractors or governments.

200 unread messages

JESUS

At least that won't get hackers imprisoned or innocents killed.

Anonymous

Might get innocents hurt I suppose.

Anonymous

But far less than a government could hurt.

Anonymous

Why is the world so shit?

Anonymous

11:05 AM

If someone can answer, I'll be forever grateful, lol.

Humanity is a plague. That's why.

@J.J You don't want to hear my opinion on this. Forest knows, and that's all I will say

ehehe

:^)

ex de

11:08 AM

edit: omg thx for the stars it's my first time getting a star in the DMZ i'm so excited

@MechMK1 You'll like this:

in Tavern on the Meta on Meta Stack Exchange Chat, 56 mins ago, by The forest of Reinstate Monica

Regarding a conversation I had a few days ago about pronouns with one or more syllables, I've found this site which has a list of pronouns which are much longer (e.g. meowself, queenself, and goreself). I'm not sure how to tell if a pronoun is a troll pronoun or not with these examples in mind (with the exception of the famous grimble and gromble).

Also

> Deity themed pronouns

dei/deis/deiself (ONLY USE IF YOU ARE GOD/DEITY BASED OTHERKIN)

And that is not a troll site or a parody.

@forest You know what my opinion on this is: grimble/gromble are valid pronouns and all those who call it a troll are directly LGBTQ+-phobic

inb4 you were the one who wrote that grimble/gromble post

Grimbleself-identifiyng people have been suppressed far too long

@forest :^)

toppest of keks

11:13 AM

But seriously though, this situation is a fucking mess and I swear if "neo-pronouns" had never been brought up, nobody would have given a single fuck

yeah :/

Maybe one meta-post on one site would have come up like "How should we deal with neo-pronouns?" and the answer would probably have been "Just be nice" and that would have been it

But then again, all the neo-pronoun disaster will probably push more people into my side of politics, for which I am thankful.

After all, the best recruitment for the right is the left.

Wouldn't be surprised.

I just wish there were more left libertarians...

But both the right and left hate us, so...

Because we're pro-guns and pro-choice, so we fit in nowhere.

I wish there were more people who wouldn't get triggered over fucking everything.

You mean like mentions of food and hospitals?

11:17 AM

Wrong link?

Anonymous

I'd pretty much consider myself to be a left libertarian, Forest.

@J.J That's good. Not taking nonsense from any party.

@MechMK1 Huh, it loaded for me yesterday.

Anonymous

In my area particularly, if you tell that to a left leaning person they start agreeing with you until they find out your "extreme" stances on freedom.

@forest It's the pronoun list thingy

Anonymous

And then they are like "THATS TERRIBLE, GET OUT OF MY FACE NAZI"

11:18 AM

> Adventures in WONDERLAND by Lewis Carroll

Ableist language
Mention of food
Mention of unnamed sister
Platonic kiss by aforementioned sister
Body shapeshifting

Anonymous

:DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Is that what you meant to send?

@MechMK1 No. It was a link describing triggers in various books.

Such as the above in Alice in Wonderland.

Anonymous

I shouldn't say this but being called a nazi brings me great joy.

@J.J :^)

Anonymous

11:18 AM

Just because... I'm not a nazi. And being called a nazi is utterly hilarious.

@J.J Same here, which is funny because I'm pretty sure I'd have been killed in Nazi Germany.

Anonymous

I'd have been killed.

Everytime forest and I talk it's only a matter of time before Gödel's law applies

or whatever the guy's name was

lol Gödel's?

Godwin?

Anonymous

To lighten the mood I was thinking of something the other day... Bear with me on this.

11:20 AM

Gödel is a set theory guy who worked with axiomatic systems.

Goodwin is that "lmao u said nazi on the internetz" guy

Anonymous

So, someone had to write the dictionary, right? So, my question is. If someone was writing the first English words and their definitions, how was he writing the definitions of words that required certain words for the definition that he didn't not already have?

I see JJ has started smoking weed :D

@J.J Language evolved naturally

Anonymous

For example, if he was writing the definition for the word "hello" and he might define that as a "a common western greeting"

(I'm pretty sure the dictionary came after English was established)

11:21 AM

Language was there before the means to define it was there

Anonymous

Where did he get the word "western" from?

Anonymous

Yeah, I think that's the answer.

@J.J They came originally from translation dictionaries.

Anonymous

But sometimes I like to trap myself into these loops.

Anonymous

It's quite riveting.

11:21 AM

Then people were like "hey, let's write something for ourselves"

Anonymous

I've always wondered why an orange is called an orange.

Anonymous

etc, etc.

etymology is interesting

Yes, that's etymology

And usually it's all the way back to some indo-european root for a word

Anonymous

I am told if you think about it too long you'll go crazy though.

11:22 AM

You can learn why a warlock is bad but a wizard is good (former comes from waerloga which means oath breaker in Old English, latter comes from wys which means wise in Middle English). Etc.

Or you can learn where the words "man" and "woman" come from ("werman" and "wifman"), with the former "wer" being the same as in "werewolf" (a man-wolf), and "wif" becoming "wife".

Anonymous

You can't say that anymore, Forest.

Anonymous

Politically incorrect.

Anonymous

:DDDD

What, man and woman? lol

Anonymous

Yup.

11:24 AM

T R I G G E R E D

shame

Anonymous

More specifically "woman".

Anonymous

I met a woman who got very triggered by that.

Seriously?

Anonymous

She preferred that I call her "girl"

Anonymous

11:24 AM

She also said "please do not call me a female either"

I've usually heard people complain the other way around.

Anonymous

Yeah.

That "girl" was somehow insulting.

Which it can be admittedly, depending on context.

"Here we are live from the extreme-right chatroom called "The DMZ", where radical ideology such as - trigger warning - there only being two genders - trigger warning end - are freely expressed"

I.e. man and girl implies inferiority or childishness, but guy and girl does not.

Anonymous

11:25 AM

Oh, no, she hated being associated with the words "man", "men" or "male".

@J.J Teach her the etymology of it. Woman does not mean "man with a womb".

Anonymous

I also had an argument with a lovely young lady on the bus.

@MechMK1 But Josh and I are left libertarian. :o

Anonymous

I offered to let her go down the stairs first and she screamed at me "I don't need your permission to exit the bus before you, sexist pig"

(I guess that's indistinguishable from far-right to some people)

@J.J wtf, I thought that was the polite thing to do

Anonymous

11:26 AM

I think I told this story before actually.

Anonymous

Yeah, me too.

Anonymous

It is polite to let a woman leave first or really just anyone.

@forest Everyone holding these views is extreme-right

Anonymous

But like, women specifically I was taught to do that from a pretty young age.

Anonymous

But she was very angry at me for it.

11:27 AM

@MechMK1 Anyone who isn't a modern neoliberal progressive is a literal nazi.

@forest true that

Anonymous

She assumed that by me somehow saying "after you" what I actually meant was "now you have my permission to exit first".

@J.J That's incredible. It should have been clear to her that you were trying to be nice.

Anonymous

Crazy...

The problem is that these kinds of things blind society from the actual issues women face.

11:27 AM

Jesus, some people just want to be offended for the sake of being offended.

Anonymous

^

In some parts of the US for example, sexism is very real, but it's masked by people who claim that thermostats are sexist. I used to work for a place that, quite explicitly, refused to hire women or blacks. It was really remarkably offensive, but that's how they did it. That's real discrimination, being masked.

Anonymous

I agree, Mech.

Anonymous

And, I agree also, Forest.

Because they need the status of victimhood to further validate their identity and worldviews.

@forest Agreed

Anonymous

11:28 AM

Do you know what really bugs me? How far people take it.

Anonymous

My ex is Palestinian, if you want to know what sexism is like, you go spend a week in the middle-east.

Anonymous

You'll see.

You know what's really sexist: Women not being allowed to leave the house without a man. Women being mutilated after birth. Women being traded like commodities.

You know what's not sexist: Offering a woman to leave the bus before you.

Anonymous

Exactly, Mech.

Jesus fucking christ, some people need a lession in proportionality.

11:29 AM

It's one reason I get so pissed off at people who get offended at 1st world problems.

Anonymous

Although I will say (just because it's a common argument I hear surrounding Muslim women), not once in the Quran does it say a woman is forced to wear a Hijab to cover her hair.

Anonymous

Nor does it say that she requires to cover her hair in front of her husband.

Anonymous

And for some reason people don't understand that.

Well yeah, but the Quran also does say some pretty nasty things.

Anonymous

Just thought I'd mention it since I mentioned the middle-east and I hear people getting this wrong all the time and it makes me fucking mad.

11:30 AM

(So does the Bible and Torah though, fwiw)

Anonymous

Oh yeah, it does.

Anonymous

But the western media has tricked the population into believing that women are forced to cover their hair and face - and it's just not true.

In some places they are (the most fundamentalist), but not all.

But many do it for cultural reasons, which I respect.

Anonymous

Yup.

Anonymous

The Quran specifically leaves the option of covering to the woman and states its for her to interpret how much she should cover.

11:32 AM

huh

Anonymous

And they certainly never use the words "must cover her hair".

Anonymous

That's just typical mosque bullshit.

I don't really respect it, because I grew up with the notion that if you are guest somewhere, it's your responsibility to adapt to their culture.

I think it's incredibly inconsiderate to move somewhere, and expect everyone else to adapt to your culture.

Anonymous

Eh, I think people can do whatever the fuck they want so I cannot really agree with that.

I mean I respect it when it's their culture in their land.

If they're pushing it on others or forcing others to accept it, I don't respect that.

Anonymous

11:34 AM

As long as nobody is being forced, I don't give a fuck what you do.

Anonymous

Yeah, exactly Forest.

@J.J Yes, they can do what they want - but it's about demanding others to adapt what they do

Anonymous

Yeah, which I don't agree with.

Anonymous

Hence "forced".

Anonymous

But in general I don't really agree with religion so..............................

11:34 AM

Simple example: A woman in a full-body veil needed to have her ID to be identified. She refused to uncover her face for anyone other than her husband. The husband demanded that she is who she is, because he vouches for her.

I don't agree with religion either.

This is a straight-up example for how your choice of how you act directly affects others. In this situation, it's not the system that has to adapt, because it works for everyone else.

Anonymous

Yeah but what you have to realise in your example Mech, it's not particularly the woman's fault.

@MechMK1 Well, she should be free to not do whatever it is she needed her ID for.

Anonymous

(I'm not sure if you were implying it is)

Anonymous

11:36 AM

But, if you were, it's not. It's more than likely than in all of these cases the man has demanded she covers herself.

I think he's implying it's the culture's fault.

Anonymous

It's not even the cultures fault.

Anonymous

It's Muslim men using the Quran in order to abuse their power they have over women which you're told as a Muslim girl since you're born. (which is culture)

Anonymous

But them abusing the Quran is not culture, if that makes sense.

(g2g, staying up too long)

Anonymous

11:37 AM

Take care!

@forest See ya

o/

@J.J My argument is that the culture and the laws of their new country of residence demands visual identification of a person in order to make a passport. Demanding a change of the laws in order to better suit the culture from their homeland is not alright.

Anonymous

So in this case, I agree with you.

It's as if I went to a muslim country and demanded them to serve me pork and beer, because that's what is common in my home country

Anonymous

11:40 AM

Where I don't agree is in daily life where such a thing is not a necessity for example, in your above scenario you're talking about the lady making a passport.

Anonymous

There I can agree that if she wants to make a passport she needs to visually ID herself. But in daily life where visual ID is not required legally? I disagree.

Disagree with what exactly? That the culture of the new "host" country should be freely disrespected?

Anonymous

Although my agreement becomes more complex when I add in the fact I don't agree with most law.

Anonymous

It's not disrespectful, she is a human too.

Anonymous

She should be able to dress however the fuck she wants.

Anonymous

11:41 AM

Nobody tells you how to dress, do they?

Anonymous

If you wanted to walk around with a balaclava, you could.

Anonymous

Why is it any different for her wanting to wear a Burqa?

Anonymous

You're mixing two different scenarios here.

I'm not telling people how to dress, but I can disagree with how they dress.

Anonymous

Sure, you can disagree.

Anonymous

11:47 AM

But I can also disagree with your disagreement.

If you decided to go out in winter with only a bathrobe, I would not have the power to tell you to wear something else, not would I make any remarks - but I would think my own part.

I agree with your disagreement of my disagreement.

Anonymous

My point is; you are mixing a legal scenario and a non-legal one in order to bolster your position.

Anonymous

And the mixing of those two things is pretty disingenuous.

Anonymous

It's perfectly agreeable that in the situation where she needs visual identification legally that she should provide that.

Because it is the same essential question, and (slippery slope fallacy incoming) what is a cultural argument today becomes a legal argument tomorrow.

Anonymous

11:48 AM

It's not the same question at all.

Anonymous

One controls her dress on a day-day basis.

Anonymous

The other controls her dress on a legally requirement basis.

Anonymous

They are not the same thing.

I'm not saying one should not be allowed to wear a headscarf. I am saying it is culturally inconsiderate to do so.

Anonymous

I don't think it's really that culturally inconsiderate. What's the difference between her wearing that and a native wearing a hood?

Anonymous

11:49 AM

Both of them could be seen to be "culturally inconsiderate" but are you disagreeing with both or only the hardscarf?

Anonymous

Because if it's only the headscarf that you disagree with then that's more of a problem.

Because it's not our culture. And likewise, if my girlfriend were to travel to the middle east, she could not say she would not want to wear a headscarf because she wants to express her own culture.

What do you mean by "native wearing a hood"?

Anonymous

You didn't answer either of my questions.

Anonymous

Well, you're saying it's culturally inconsiderate for her to wear a headscarf.

Anonymous

I'm asking you, how is it different for someone from your culture to walk around with their hood up?

11:51 AM

I wouldn't consider it wrong, because it's culturally accepted to do so.

At least, in some situations. Not everywhere.

Indoors I would consider it rude, outdoors it's acceptable.

Anonymous

So you do think it's okay for someone to wear a hood in some situations but it's never okay for a Muslim woman to wear a Hijab?

Anonymous

So can you see why someone might think the latter disagreement comes from a prejudicial stance/motive?

It does, because I am very much prejudiced.

Anonymous

Well, as long as you know.

Anonymous

As long as you also don't think they are an inferior being to you, then judging people for your own comfort is perfectly okay.

11:54 AM

No, I think they are people just like me. They're just different people with different cultures.

Anonymous

It's when you act on such judgements you become a problem.

Anonymous

Well, at least you have that.

And I want to be able to freely express my culture in my country, just how they should be free to express their culture in their country.

Anonymous

I don't really have an argument against your prejudiced.

Likewise, if they argue that in their country it's custom for women to wear headscarfs and are thus required to do so, I should be allowed to make the same argument that it's custom here for women not to wear headscarfs.

Anonymous

11:55 AM

Perhaps the world would be a better place if more people just let people do whatever the hell they want as long as it does not harm others.

Anonymous

I.E - headscarfs don't cause you pain. Nor does not wearing one in their country cause them pain.

That works, as long as "what the hell [people] want" doesn't interfere with what others do.

Anonymous

If you think an item of clothing interferes with your day-day life, you have bigger problems to worry about.

What about muslims demanding women here to not wear bikinis in a public swimming pool?

Anonymous

Which is exactly why I broke your argument into two situations.

Anonymous

11:57 AM

That's an unreasonable demand.

Anonymous

As I said, people should be able to do anything they want to do as long as they are not harming others.

It's a demand they make, based on the very same argument for headscarfs: That it's their culture and it needs to be respected.

Anonymous

I think you're rather missing my point.

No no, I do see your point

Anonymous

ALL of these demands are unreasonable from either side.

11:58 AM

I understand your argument for maximum personal freedom

But I just argue in a different way. I argue on the basis of cultural customs

Anonymous

The only time such a demand is valid is when the law requires it to be.

Anonymous

Although, I do not agree with law but let's assume I do.

I would disagree that a culture codified by law is "more valid" than a culture that is not.

Anonymous

Well, then get rid of IDs altogether.

Anonymous

Because it's the only way you solve that scenario (by forcing them to remove it if they want the ID, no matter what/who they are)

12:00 PM

I disagree with that very much

Anonymous

How else do you think you can solve that problem?

Anonymous

Because if your answer is: "disallow them to wear it all the time" then I'm afraid we're back to square 1 and I simply will not agree to that.

You would have to compare the upsides of being able to uniquely identify a person to the upside of personal expression.

I think "abolishing passports" is simply not practically feasible.

Anonymous

It was more of a hypothetical than an actual suggestion.

So if you desire to have a passport, you will have to live with the fact that someone needs to validate your identity.

Anonymous

12:04 PM

Yes, that was precisely my point.

Anonymous

To which you said: "I would disagree that a culture codified by law is "more valid" than a culture that is not."

Yes. "Deal with it" is my answer.

Anonymous

But again, you are crossing daily life with a very unique situation.

The reason behind this is not to codify the culture

Anonymous

The two are not the same.

Anonymous

12:05 PM

Getting a passport is undeniably a unique situation, adults (in this country at least) only need to renew it once every 10 years.

The reason behind this is that in order to have a document that attests your identity, the entity that creates this document needs to verify your identity.

Anonymous

Yes, which I understand.

It's not an arbitrary cultural norm, it's a technical necessity.

Anonymous

But that does not mean that needs to restrict them in daily life, does it?

Anonymous

That's my problem with you compounding the two scenarios into one.

12:05 PM

If there was a possibility to attest your identity by, e.g. fingerprint, then all of this would be perfectly fine.

And yes, not having a passport restricts them in their possibilities, but this restriction comes directly from their unwillingness to comply to existing law.

If I refuse to make a driver's license because it would require me to take a test (my religion forbids me from doing tests), then the consequence of this personal choice is that I am not able to drive a car. Having someone else vouch for the fact that I know all the answers will not help.

Q: How to keep a Cloud-hosted trading algorithm private? Encryption?

1:15 PM

I wish I had time to read through the entire conversation here (900 missed messages!), as this conversation sounds right up my ally. I agree entirely with what you are saying Mech. I obviously missed something though because it seems like J.J. keeps saying, "Yes, but I disagree with that other thing you said", but I don't actually see you saying anything else... anyway

I like these questions (although I'm going to risk sounding like a jerk) as they come up occasionally:

0

Are there any reliable ways of protecting a cloud-hosted trading algorithm from being seen/copied – for example, by people working at a company who are hosting an algo (like QuantConnect, Quantopian, AWS, GoogleCloud, etc.)? This seems like a potential risk to me – even though I've seen these co...

algorithm

Anonymous

@ConorMancone RE: What I was disagreeing with.

It basically boils down to, "How do I protect my source code from theft" when the real answer is: "No one actually wants to steal your source code". The question seems wildly broad and unanswerable as-is, so I may go ahead and give that as a non-answer anyway...

Anonymous

He was combining two situations.

Anonymous

A situation where someone requires identification for a passport and daily life.

Yes, exactly, but in the history visible to me I only see him discussing one situation

Anonymous

1:17 PM

I do NOT believe a person should have to change their culture in daily life.

Anonymous

I don't know how that's so hard to understand.

Could I on Linux as a non-priv user modify the file descriptor table of another process?

Anonymous

Why should someone change their culture in daily life because of ONE situation occurring where they need to get a passport? It makes zero sense.

@J.J lol, I wasn't trying to argue with you. I was merely stating that I can't see the comments about daily life, so I can't assess whether or not they are reasonable

Anonymous

I see.

1:18 PM

E.g. if I run sudo cat something, and cat writes to stdout (FD 1), can I cause FD 1 to be /etc/sudoers?

@MechMK1 No clue

:(

My suspicion is no, not without being an elevated user, but I'm no where near certain. Can you turn it into a question for the site?