On my own, I’d have zero chance of finding these exploits. But once the LLM identifies them, it’s very easy for me to verify that they are indeed real exploits, and to realize how they can be used maliciously.

P ≠ NP scores another win.

This guy punches left while modding “Pragmatic Leftist Theory” (!PLT@sh.itjust.works). In a surprise to no one, PJ posts there.

I wouldn’t usually look to Nazbol Jackson Hinkle on any topic.

On this topic I’d look to Gabriel Rockhill, who recently published his first book of three on the topic: Who Paid the Pipers of Western Marxism?. You can also find his work on the Critical Theory Workshop YouTube channel.

Lemmy.ml doesn’t formally follow the disengage rule, but I think we’re generally likely to honor it.

Move fast and silence tankies.

Reporter: [REDACTED]
Reason: irresponsible disclosure of zero day vulnerability

I’m not sure what I’d have done if I’d found these. First I’d have considered how it’s poor form to broadcast zero-day vulnerabilities in public fora. I doubt PieFed is plugged in to the formal CVE process, but we do know how to communicate with the lead developer informally.

The lead developer may not be everyone’s favorite little guy lately, but he’s not the only one affected. Consider the admins of the Fediverse Anarchist Flotilla, for instance, who are running PieFed (and forks of PieFed).

I would CC the lead developer here, but he’s put me on his official shit list, so he wouldn’t have received it. Someone else will have to tell him.

cc Mia/@Quokka@quokk.au @db0@anarchist.nexus @unruffled@anarchist.nexus

Apparently it’s complicated, and I don’t care enough to investigate, because the royal trappings don’t really matter in the grand scheme of things. They’re just a useful jumping-off point in discussing class and state power.

This is like basic trolly problem shit.

The trolley problem itself is shit.

I think the question is a very, to put it mildly, useless question. It’s a typical example of an analytic philosophical thought experiment, which is has basically nothing to do with real life. No one has ever been in a situation as it is described in the trolley problem.

That doesn’t mean that sometimes, unfortunately, we are in situations where we are where we experience a moral dilemma. Of course we’re often in a situation where we experience a form of moral dilemma. But moral dilemmas are always concrete, and you always experience them under specific conditions, in a specific context that is very complex. You have specific means to make the decision, and practically never are universal moral principles even helpful to make that decision.

As a matter of fact, moral principles are I would say empirically never really used to actually decide moral dilemmas. They are used after the fact to justify a decision, which is a typical form of moral communication.

OC is one of the most reactionary people on Lemmy. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s a monarchist caping for the Crown.

But the headline says five billion pounds. So which is it, 5 pounds of 5 billion?
 
 
/s

I think those robes, the crown, the Sceptre, they were all the Crown’s stuff - aka the Firm, the organization that is the English monarchy - and not his. They existed before him, they will exist after him, and his wearing them lays little claim of ownership past “work clothes” than a pilot can claim to own the plane he’s flying.

The Sovereign runs the Firm and so could sell the trappings of royalty.

if the Crown’s representative sells the work clothes he’s issued, who’s buying it? That guy, those people buying them, they’ve truly amassed a personal fortune to be able to buy something like that. It’s not work for them; it’s obscene decadence and greed.

THOSE are your villains.

Those are also our villains. It’s not an either-or. The capitalist class and the vestigial feudal class run the United Kingdom, at the expense of the working class.

Taxation is how we get them to pay their share from here on in, like we did in the '40s through the '70s.

The capitalist class & nobility gave the working class temporary concessions out of fear of revolution, and they have since clawed those concessions back. They’re not going to pay more taxes without a threat, never mind relinquish power.

It’s Alia Atredes.

If it wasn’t Fetterman, it would have been someone else. It’s a ruse, a tactic called the “rotating villain.” The Dems were never going to let it pass.

If everyone knows—including you—that Russia isn’t socialist, why would you imply that it is?

I imagine Starlink prompted this.

Has no one explained the Streisand effect to him?