Tried VOX, but it attempts to do way too much and kept crashing on my machine. The UI is nice enough, but all I want is a media player which lets me add a bunch of folders to watch, which monitors those folders for any files that are added to them and updates the global playlist, lets me queue tracks as easily as Winamp did (just hit 'j', it queues the file and shows the queue position next to the file name), and doesn't try and jam streaming, cloud storage, internet radio, and a billion other useless things down my throat.
Not to mention stuff like VOX Agent, and their system preferences panel - why do I want or need either of those things taking up space and resources on my machine? Why is my MP3 player connecting to the internet at all?
Why do so many developers insist on bloating up their software with so much crud that it becomes necessary to use much older versions? Hell, Nullsoft itself was guilty of that exact issue once AOL squeezed out the massive turd that was Winamp 5 - the last sane version was 2.81.
Unless you have some training that makes you qualified to assess that (in which case qualifying yourself as such would help), perhaps you should refrain from throwing around terms like that.
It also also says something people throwing that word around like that, especially in light of "TimeToDieJake" thing, denying the impersonation attempts (even though "ioerrror" can't be explained away that easily), finding this [0] terribly funny, while still being unable to back up the plagiarism claims (e.g. Nick Farr answered all sorts of softball questions, but not that). That's very different from anything resembling a good faith effort.
And when it comes to mental health, considering their behaviour and words, I would need to see a clinical diagnosis of ALL involved people to take that seriously in the least. So far I see people who are being abusive saying someone else is abusive; so far I see people demonstrating no empathy, intellectual honesty or capability to reflect, calling someone else a sociopath. So far I see a "community" with very little courage or integrity talking about standing up to bullies, while flagging the story which is clearing up a false claim that has already been spread. A safe space for lynch mobs.
Appelbaum might be guilty of some or a lot of things, but I'm not taking anyone's word for it when they can't even answer the most simple and obvious questions, questions they should have had answers for before even speaking. And the "trust" or "respect" of people who don't notice that is at best of zero value for my own evaluation, at worst it has negative value. And as it stands, I can't interpret the "diagnosis" as sociopath (and plagiarist) as anything than another red flag for those making it, considering all the proof in all this pudding so far, and considering how they don't "criticize their own".
I guess that's also Appelbaum's sinister influence, or something, that so many people don't dare to or are unable to do what a somewhat moral, somewhat intelligent child would already have done (maybe you can even strike "moral" and "intelligent" and replace that with "without an agenda or outside pressure, freely and honestly responding"). Don't put any obligations on victims, after all - including having to prove their victim status that gives them amnesty for any and all transgressions and regressions.
Though maybe they're not transgressions, since a sociopath is not a human being (and just with the victim status, since a sociopath has no rights you don't have to prove the claim after you made it), like someone spookily alluded to but then somehow didn't follow up on [1]. But remember, Appelbaum's allegedly the sick person, so nobody else can be sick. He is allegedly manipulative and dishonest, so nobody else can be.
the infosec scene is in a place the OSS scene was in ˜13-14 years ago, before the formal introduction of the gnome foundation, kde reorg. guess what both of those projects have?
outreach programmes and ombudsmän.
now, guess what the tor project lacks.
as you're probably thinking right now "but how in the f..." simple, OSS has had to deal with toxic enviroments and individuals.
one of the cornerstones is, listen, corroborate, recommend, act.
the infosec community as a whole lack formal mature organisations to deal with these kinds of situations.
what we're still lacking in the witness accounts are timeframes, we have something of a picture from very vague details from leaked emails, these can be regarding pretty much anything, aside from one which is about _unspecified_ misconduct at a conference.
the sad thing here is that people can change, victims with trauma live with the trauma, so listen, validate, no-shame or pre-judgement.
but the infosec scene isnt a special snowflake exempt from the social contract of society, we all co-sign it by living in a nationstate, so we need to uphold it because the alternative is chaos.
if there is a legitimate grievance, report it, go through the system. hell, even brokep says as much, and he trusts the system on this, even though the process he has been forced to endure.
this is interesting, a house in sweden, even rural sweden runs at the cheapest just shy of 1mil sek. that is to say, the lower end bracket of the middle class can forget about owning a house.
basically its the old Microsoft adage that Apple somehow co-opted, embrace - extend etc etc.
Apple implemented a feature for the next release of osx that does what f.lux does, knowingly.
Ehhhh, it's a grey area. They are definitely in the 'embrace' stage, but they're doing it on iOS, where f.lux doesn't really have a presence. You can argue that makes it different, or you could argue it's close enough.
That is a story from a week ago. But news about flux pop on hacker news for as long as I read hacker news.
And about that apple feature, I did not get that also, so what if they implemented it (and did not allow 3rd party apps to do it)? It`s not like they have to check if there is an app for something that they like to put in the OS (and there is an app for almost everything now).. Btw, I use Android primarily because of customization options, there was not one thing I could not do on Android which I needed and there were some really advanced stuff that I wanted from a phone :)
Back in the olden days (System 7~8) Apple would actually buy out the third party tools they wanted to add to the OS (MenuClock, WindowShade, etc). Then Steve Jobs came back and they just started Sherlocking developers instead...
That's certainly true of servers, but it's way less important for the limited set of services a router typically provides. Aside from the services that really need root because they're changing system settings, you've pretty much got just dnsmasq and hostapd out of the box. Isolating them is nice if you've got the storage space for that extra complexity, but it's not like OpenWRT is a massive attack surface with gaping holes.
This, to me, is somewhat funny in the "that train is going to hit that car.." sense.
whenever there's an exploit used by non state actors in an adversarial sense, there's goverment pressure to cyber this, cyber that, banhammer down, on the technology sector.
But several times a year we get to read about predatory behaviour by financial institutions. i'd even venture to say borderline illegal considering the presedences.
i digress, but there's simply low enough of a risk of the goverment getting involved that this type of crime is not only "worth it" but also shows how deeply embedded the finance sector is in the pockets of politicians the world over.
What was "borderline illegal" about it - from what I can see they used a few tricks that are fairly standard in the private equity world and that any "sophisticated" buyers of the stock should have been able to spot if they were any good at their jobs.
Of course, the PE company comes across as sharks - but all PE companies are sharks - that's what they do!
Perhaps you could perhaps argue that PE companies play the same role in the commercial world as scavengers do in ecosystems - rip up the dead or nearly dead and try and extract value from it.
Not something that I could do, or even admire, but capitalism is much about failure as it is about success.
Isn't that the problem here? It seems like Dick Smith was already well on the way to failure, but Anchorage comes in and props it up like it's succeeding enough to cash in on a stock offering.
In general, elimination of uncompetitive companies is one of the important tools that make the economy strong and prosperous.
If some system (company, branch, industry niche, product line - in different scales) in the economy is weak and inefficient, then simply allowing it to operate as-is will be a constant drain on the society, and artificially supporting/subsidizing it will hurt the people/companies who are either doing the same thing better, or doing some different, better thing.
On the other hand, ripping an inefficient company apart as the 'sharks' do - that is a way to reallocate all those resources (subsidiaries, employees, capital, buildings) to other places that will make a better use of them. The whole reason why large companies exist is because it's a way to get 2+2=5, so to speak. If some company achieves 2+2=3, then tearing it apart to get two 2's out of it is a valuable service for the financial ecosystem.
Lack of such 'sharks' increases short-term stability, but at the cost of having a lot of resources tied up in inefficient places; this is considered one of major factors why planned/command economies tend to fall behind to market economies - simply because they tend to leave uncompetitive businesses alone instead of agressively dismantling them.
And in this case, this whole fiasco might actually be partly to be blamed on lack of more sharks: it was not and is not possible to short stocks of Dick Smith.
I think the basic idea is that companies that are unprofitable or barely profitable or otherwise underperforming are chewed up and uhh... spat out, leaving the assets (people, inventory, etc) to be picked up by healthier companies.
Contrast this with 'zombie companies' in Japan, 'zombie banks' like Deutsche Bank, and so forth that are kept animated by gov/taxpayer money instead of fed to the sharks.
Dick Smith could have been wildly profitable and they still would've sold it.
It's all to do with focus and Woolworth's core business is not consumer electronics. It's supermarkets. And their core business is being decimated by their competitors (Coles/Aldi) and they are at real risk of not having a long term future if they don't focus.
I am in the supermarket business so I know exactly how serious their situation is.
