![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/db7182d9-181a-45e1-b0aa-6768f144911a.jpeg)
This. Iām guessing that police man actually saved trumps life because the attempt had to be carried out in a rush and with at least a mild shock still in the system.
This. Iām guessing that police man actually saved trumps life because the attempt had to be carried out in a rush and with at least a mild shock still in the system.
The point being trump would set the bar very low anyways
Yeah they were experimenting with 64bit exploitation when this signal handler got some focus regarding a (likely related) deadlock so they rushed to disclose their findings to the project to minimise the possibility of having eyes on this vulnerability
Itās not like trump is known to not stoop below any bar he sees. Holding the bar up wonāt do anything
You just have a chain of unprovable assumptions there.
Kidās use slang -> they must have picked it up on the internet -> many people are illiterate -> the parents of these specific kids are not raising them right
Excuse me the correct slang here would be to hit someone with that āhawk tuahā
I guess itās also my bad. After reading the text with a more neutral mindset itās not that clear cut as I initially read it. My bs detector tends to get a bit sensitive when AI comes up and I interpreted the wording in the worst way possible.
You have written tests for your code and now feel safe because your code is tested. But test quality is really hard to measure. The idea seems to be to introduce āvulnerabilitiesā (whatever that meansā¦) and see if your tests catch them. If they do thatās supposed to show that the tests are good and vice versa.
As the first AI-based mutation testing tool, Mutahunter surpasses traditional ādumbā AST-based methods. Our AI-driven approach provides a full contextual understanding of the entire codebase,
This is where I call bullshit. The AST is a precise representation of the code which should be easier to analyse and modify instead of the raw text. If you only rely on processing the text I have a hard time believing your AI has a deep understanding of the contextual interdependencies of the different parts of the code.
Edit: it kinda does use the AST if one of the preconditions is a treesitter grammar? Maybe the marketing wording is just very unfortunate?
No thatās not the same. In one case there is only the theoretical possibility of help whereas in the other case there is a realizable possibility for help. This is a big difference.
But if a private company does it, it belongs ti the private company.
Unless you donāt believe in private ownership?
āIf I invented the means of saving lives that doesnāt make it my responsibility to actually do so. Especially if there are profits on the lineā. Wow.
Germany has a beautiful sentence in its constitution:
Eigentum verpflichtet. Sein Gebrauch soll zugleich dem Wohle der Allgemeinheit dienen.
Property implies responsibility. Its use shall also benefit the wellbeing of the general public.
The thought being that while private property is a core staple of our society this is only the case because the concept of private property is seen as beneficial overall. If private property starts hurting the general public then the implied responsibilities coming with the property are not being fulfilled and the concept loses its value to society as a whole.
I really donāt get what youāre trying to say here. Thatās obviously great. I am all for doing this stuff, how could you even think I wouldnāt? Iām saying both kinds of activism provide value.
(Aside from the fact that nothing really got damagedā¦)
Part of your anger seems to stem from me saying that this whole thing isnāt moving forward fast enough and somehow you think thatās a critique of your personal work. I assure you that wasnāt my goal. But you have to admit that we are, globally, not moving fast enough.
The connection to the fight for racial equality is interesting but Iām not sure how well this applies. How do you suppose you can do anything equivalently ānot accepting the rules we want to protestā in the context of climate change? Because before there was a big movement there were just a few people breaking the unfair rules. Which where likely talked similarly about as you are talking about these activists right now.
Iām only speculating that you made that situation up because deep down you understand the need to disassociate yourself from these protests, and itās increasingly clear to me that you see their value in some kind of shell game strategy, where no one knows whoās pulling the strings. But again, you made that up, not me.
I am being very clear about the fact that two forms of activism can and should be done under different names. And that that is because some forms of activism that I deem valuable would have detrimental effects on the other form of activism if done under the same name. You seem to have a hard time getting that but thatās not because Iām being unclear about this.
Because if youāre not embarassed or ashamed of the pipeline disturbance/damage, then you shouldnāt have a problem openly associating yourself with it. The fact that youāre trying to hard to suggest itās prudent to distance oneself from a disruption/protest tells me that deep down you understand these things are perceived negatively and are therefore more likely to cause friction and disagreement than sympathy for a cause.
You are still arguing from the perspective that activism needs to please people or else itās āembarrassingā or āshamefulā. I do agree that there is activism that displeases people, I think that is still valuable and nothing to be ashamed of.
But I can acknowledge that there are people that do not see that as something that should be supported. Different forms of activism have different target groups and different wanted effects. Itās just a rational thing to address different target groups and produce different effects under different names.
Ah, so now itās enough to acknowledge that public resources exist and people can find it if they want? Because seconds ago you were cheering for people to paint rocks in a public place to keep people from talking about anything else. Seems youāre not quite sure what you believe or how you think it should be accomplished. So what is it? Should it be shoved into peopleās faces so they canāt ignore it? Or should they be left to find their own resources?
I want the issue front and center in the public discussion. You and I are both aware that people arenāt 100% of the time participating in the public discussion but spend time doing their own thing. Which is partially influenced by what is happening in the public discussion. If climate change is a topic, even if just tangential, that still helps influence people to think about it in the times they spend outside of the public discussion.
I am an ally. Thatās what you donāt understand and refuse to entertain as a possibility. Iām an environmental advocate both personally and professionally, and Iāve been working on climate change and environmental issues for over a decade. And even Iām telling you that painting a rock is stupid and counterproductive.
Again I want to thank you for your work, we need people like you. But I donāt think thatās all we need. It has become apparent that just silently working on this at the grassroots level hasnāt shown the necessary progress. So people have decided to express their opinion in more loud and disturbing manners.
The only people who give a shit and empathize with it are people who were already on your team.
Again, this protest isnāt about sympathy. I donāt think anyone is having the illusion that a majority would be happy about this kind of protest. But I think āno one gives a shitā is pretty evidently a lie. People very demonstrably give a shit about Stonehenge being orange for a little while.
Oh definitely. Iām just saying both sides have their indiscriminant supporters and that one side is way overrepresented in my experience
The fact that we are talking about this and not about climate change is also partly your decision. You are free at any point to disengage this thread and focus your energy on more productive things. The fact that youāre not doing this is just one example of humans being humans and not always doing the best of all things. Me still arguing with you is of course another example.
Why do you not want these actions associated with the other group?
I can repeat this as often as you want: people want to engage in different kinds of activities under different names because the actions do not relate and the messaging becomes confusing. I can both disturb the operation of a pipeline and try to mobilize locals to support the building of a solar power plant. Doing both under the same name makes everything more complicated even if there is personal overlap. I really donāt get why you are so hung up on this.
Furthermore, you donāt think painting a fucking rock is confusing to the people who want to discuss climate change, but having one interest group perform varying kinds of direct activism and grassroots organizing is confusing to the people who want to discuss climate change?
I donāt exactly get the question here. Iām not saying any of those options is particularly confusing. Iām saying doing both under the same name might get confusing for people not intimately familiar with your group and their actions.
Itās a hypothetical, not a strawman, which should have been obvious when the sentence began with āifā.
The hypothetical that you are posing instead of what Iām actually arguing for. You then argue against that hypothetical instead of my actual points. Thatās a classic example of a strawman.
Youāre advocating for bothering random people at a tourist attraction,
Yes Iām advocating for bothering people in public. Where else would you bother people?
and youāre doing it in a way that a) distracts from talking about actual climate change,
Thatās a choice the public is making. And again I think this is fine.
b) leaves them virtually NO information about how to address climate change,
Thatās also fine. Itās not like there arenāt any publicly available sources on how to fight climate change. If the people are interested they can go talk to the many many local groups that engage in productive activities.
and c) is potentially affecting people who already do what they can to address climate change. See how this entire thread has been about painting rocks, instead of daily choices we make that contribute to or affect climate change???
This thread is a prime example of people like you who could be allies here and engage people who arenāt yet convinced that we need to take action, that instead take up a lot of time and energy to argue about the kind of protest.
No I didnāt miss that but taking an explorative pilot project as the defacto standard and then rejecting that it might be possible to build something more space efficient is not how the world works
And time. You know, because time spent with other organizations is what weāre talking about here? It takes time to fight a criminal charge. Besides, weāre now nitpicking about how much time theyāll spend in jail, rather than you proving with any evidence that theyāre doing anything more constructive than performative stunts. Rather than show actual good theyāre doing, youāve just supposed that they might be doing it, and challenged that I canāt prove that they donāt. I hope you see how ridiculous this is.
You and me are arguing a non-provable hypothetical. Yes time they spend in jail is time they arenāt doing anything productive. That doesnāt mean they donāt do anything productive in their time they do not spend in jail. Also: The repressions they face as a consequence of their activism is part of the activism in my book.
Every second we spend on this stupid conversation is a second that proves the effect of the protest is to make the stunt the subject of the conversation, rather than the climate.
Iāll argue that without that stunt weād be talking about something different entirely likely unrelated to the climate crisis. Which would be even less helpful.
If the protest accomplishes their goals, then why separate them? Why have a separate organization at all? Whatās the point of that?
As I have explained already: itās about communicating to the public. Doing things under a certain name helps the public associate the current actions with past actions under the same name. If you do two vastly different things it helps to separate those by name too, otherwise it can get confusing for people that are not interacting with your group often enough.
No, activism doesnāt need to please people, it needs to be targeted to inconvenience the right people.
If I show up at your home first thing in the morning and pour colored powder on the car you use to get to work, and I tell you āIām helping spread the word about starvation in Africaā, youāre going to wash the powder off and then yell at me for being a fucking idiot and taking it out on you. Youāre not going to stop what youāre doing and send a donation to feed children in Africa because I vandalized your car.
Thatās quite the strawman youāve put up here. Iām not advocating for bothering random people at their home and thatās not what JSO is doing. As far as I can tell they are targeting people of public interest, big events, and popular public places. Which is the ārightā people because the climate crisis is about all of us. We all are contributing to it be it daily choices or our choices while casting our democratic votes.
Thatās hardly surprising