![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/913b482d-9012-449f-bc87-b1f4463e7154.jpeg)
Yes, it’s legal in much of the US. Many states require a permit for concealed carry, but not for open carry. WalMart has signs at the front of the store “requesting” people not to open carry, but apparently not prohibiting it.
Yes, it’s legal in much of the US. Many states require a permit for concealed carry, but not for open carry. WalMart has signs at the front of the store “requesting” people not to open carry, but apparently not prohibiting it.
That would be true for competent web developers. Unfortunately, those are a vanishingly small subset.
Nah. This has happened with every major corporate antivirus product. Multiple times. And the top IT people advising on purchasing decisions know this.
The context is that the original version of the keyboard didn’t have the q a and z keys on the right side at all. QMK and similar keyboard firmwares have features that let a key send one code when tapped and a different code when held or pressed, and even another when double tapped.
The keyboard designer made themself a keyboard where ESC, Tab, and Shift keys were set up to send q, a, and z on a quick tap, and got so many comments on multiple videos asking how they could possibly use a keyboard missing three letters that they made another keyboard with the three cockeyed keys added on the right as a joke.
Favorite would be a highly customized zsh.
fizsh (not fish) is what I actually end up using, as I can’t be bothered to copy that config around and retune it for each machine. Gives me the syntactic sugar of zsh with common default options on by default, an OK default prompt, and doesn’t break POSIX assumptions like fish. Also Installs quickly from the package manager without needing to run through the zsh setup each time - unlike oh-my-zsh. And if I still need customization, all the zsh options are still there.
No - it was the language that I said was transphobic, not the author. Given that there were two different word choices (“transsexual” and “perceived gender”) that reinforced each other, it seems more likely than not that they reflected the mindset of the author, but not having looked further for their other writings I was not sure. That’s why I said " transphobic language" and not “transphobic author”.
More, but there’s an even simpler solution. In the context, the author is distinguishing between “sex assigned at birth” and “perceived gender.” The equivocating word " perceived" could simply be dropped with no loss of clarity.
There’s nothing wrong with the example in and of itself, but the word “transsexual” in place of “transgender” is not generally random. It is explicitly chosen by Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs) as well as by right-wing transphobes as a dog whistle to conflate gender dysphoria with drag queens and cross-dess fetishists so as to delegitimise transpeople and suggest some sort of sexual deviance. Coupled with the equivocation of “perceived” gender, motive doesn’t even have to come into it. The words themselves and the concepts they reinforce are transphobic and harmful.
A witch hunt would have been for me to say that the author is a transphobic asshole whose writings need to be wiped from the internet - which is very far from what I actually posted, which was regret for the way the language they chose distracted from the flow of their argument by reinforcing the social stigmatization of trans people. (Edit: That was a deliberate choice on my part. Not knowing enough about the author to be sure of motives and having no desire to deep dive into their history, I decided that it was only appropriate to point out the hurtful nature of the language and not imply motive.)
A well argued point. Could have done without the random transphobic comments about “transsexuals” and “perceived gender”.
Good point. That was in the “static IP” category and not counted in the 200+ million install “malicious code” category, though. It could be a warning sign of false positives, but the example was such a small snippet it could also be opening after a VPN is established. That example was supposedly part of code that opens a connection for shell access from the other end, but without more details it’s not really possible to say.
The researchers are releasing the scanning tool they created for people to be able to run against their own installs.
Except their summary is wrong. The researchers went on to search other extensions for known malicious code, and found it in thousands of extensions with tens of millions of total installs.
And not subject to compliance based retention standards
Probably because of this. The commenter overstated the situation, but there are valid and serious criticisms to be made.
Don’t forget /auto, for things that get automatically mounted when you first access them (autofs)