I purposely avoided any comparison between Clinton and other presidents, as many have done bad things, and it is difficult to rank them all. I just wanted to address the parent comment's minimization of Clinton's wrong-doing, as evidenced by this quote: "l'affaire de bj was a willful attempt to take the president's private life public"
What Clinton did was absolutely wrong, but that was a personal affair.
In life and the law, intentions are foundational for evaluating people's actions.
The scandalizing of Clinton's behavior was only about political slander, mud slinging. Your pearl clutching is performative and partisan.
There's so much to not like about the Dems, and it's primarily in the fact that DNC leadership is corrupt and they are only interested in serving themselves and their patrons. But the party members as a whole do work on trying to do good governance. They often fail, but on the intentions front, it's not disagreable.
Counter this to the modern day GOP -- they've been coopted by the evangelicals and white nationalists, and the only thing they want to govern is demanding that their theology is the law of the land. No thank you.
I have respect for old-school conservatives who cared about limited government -- I totally agree with that concept but differ on how those limits are set.
I have no party affiliation and loath partisan politics, but with the two-party system one has to choose the least worst.
Dating in the workplace is usually a bad idea, especially if it's a manager and an underling because the power dynamics get fucked up.
But in the case of the Clinton affair, it was effectively personal (Bill, Monica, Hillary) -- their business.
Please explain how this impacted Clinton's ability to execute his job, or how that dynamic hurt Lewinsky in such a way that it needed to be a national affair?
This is the same kind of feigned moral panic over Hunter Biden's business dealings -- designed solely to smear the president for their opponents political gain.
Edit: as a counter point, Trump fucking a porn star months after his son was born was technically between him, Stormy, and Melania. The reason that it was worthy of public scrutiny was that he committed campaign finance fraud with the hush money. Ironically, no pearls were clutched by his supporters over that.
Clinton damaged the White House intern program by making it look like they were either his harem or victims; having an affair in his office also made it look like he was more interested in using his position to cheat on his wife than do his job. It was at least a distraction, and probably more of a handicap. If he wanted to have sex with Lewinsky, he should have waited until she left the internship, and done it in the Residence.
I purposely avoided comparing Clinton to anyone else, so whatever horrible things Trump has done is just changing the subject. I personally believe that neither of them has committed (anything approximating) the most abhorrent acts by a POTUS, but that's a different conversation.
From what I understand, there's a very good chance that Venezuelan forces of some kind collaborated on that—possibly to the point of delivering Maduro gift-wrapped.
It was clear the “plan” was take control of Venezuelan oil, Iranian oil, and make Cuba a resort paradise for the rich American upper class, like God intended.
> I've spent almost a year looking at the new apartment complexes in a 1 mil city at different price tiers and levels of completion. Almost no charging spots in any of them, or maybe 1-2 spots per 200 apartment building AND they are priced even higher than high cost basic concrete parking place.
Anecdotal but it’s been my experience too here in the US. I don’t have a home to plug my car in and I really don’t want to deal with these charging games where you need an app and you have to queue and then be ready to swap your car in. Then you have to keep in mind when it’s done because others are in line. It’s such a hassle that I’m not getting an EV anytime soon. Plus my current vehicle runs without issue and probably will for the next 5-8 years (or more)
The person you replied to is right, the "security" of Linux might as well be nonexistent compared to macOS and especially iOS/Android. Even the developers of Secureblue (https://secureblue.dev/) state that despite their hardening and mitigations Linux still lags far behind macOS (and possibly Windows) security-wise. The only Linux derivative that has proper security is Android, and even better GrapheneOS.
OK. Here is a kernel developer explaining it recently on this site:
https://qht.co/item?id=48448345
// When people escalate privileges on MacOS it's news, when they do it on Linux
it's Tuesday (you might think the recent spate of privesc vulns on Linux was
unusual but that is totally normal). I say this as someone who works on Linux
security every day (I am a kernel developer) and uses Linux on every computer I
have, both at work and at home, BTW. I am not a Linux hater or Apple fanboy by
any means.
https://qht.co/item?id=48444187 // I am just talking about the pure tech fact that GNU/Linux desktops do not have any meaningful intra-host security boundaries.
https://qht.co/item?id=48059250 // To convince me Linux is full
of kernel LPE bugs, can you share some of the bugs? [answered by the kernel dev]
I also have some cites of comments on Linux by the founder of GrapheneOS I could dig up.
Linux is easier to misconfigure. Macs resists being misconfigured insecurely. At their tightest, I'd say neither is fundamentally more insecure than the other. (The exception would be M5-based Macs, which come with MIE. Though that isn't a macOS vs Linux thing per se.)
This is incorrect macOS is fundamentally more secure than desktop Linux operating systems and it isn't particularly close.
No amount of Linux hardening will get a system even close to an M-chip Mac. Software insecurities aside, desktop Linux OS systems have almost none of the hardware-backed security benefits that Macs do.
At some point, lack of security becomes a feature. A fully secure, locked-down, T2 attested macOS is able to be controlled not just by Apple, but by increasingly evil governments, with no recourse available to users.
Conversely, a Linux system with no verified boot can be easily tampered with without the user detecting it by people lower than the government such as casual hackers. So in a world where your government is going crazy, you're opting for an operating system that can be penetrated with relative ease (e.g. with persistent root malware) both by a non-government hacker on top of a state backed one.
It's not really about supply chain security it's about the hardware itself. PC manufacturers in general just can't keep up since they don't have full control/integration over the hardware stack like Apple does. Also CPU, secure element etc security is limited but Qualcomm is catching up pretty quickly I believe if they aren't there already. We won't talk about Intel and AMD. But that's beyond my knowledge so I can't say anything too specific that's just what I have from general knowledge I'm sure someone will jump in with additional info if needed.
I don't think Apple is particularly any more secure against the US government than Intel is with supply chain vulnerabilities but I have nothing to back that up with aside from vibes.
I’m sure this is banged on somewhere but I love their product branding, particularly how they have this “minor” “major” thing going on. Sonnet-Opus, and now Fable-Myth.
You’re missing the forest for the trees. Yeah the item cost doesn’t double, but it goes up significantly because now your addressable market has 2x money.
It’s awfully convenient for old heads who enjoyed the insane run up of the last decade and a half that are in plush situation to then say “oh it might suck for you now, too bad!”
Good for you to make all the hay when the sun shone? Fuck the future generation, let’s make it even harder for them with these insane interview ideas.
I’m curious though… these days I’ve to apply for n number of jobs to get 1.
Let’s say I get someone to do this provisional work. What about my existing job? I can’t just ignore it, and I can’t just causally say at my current company that I’m interviewing anywhere else.
And god forbid you like 2 potential gigs, and they both want you to do the campfire approach. Then my current job is really screwed!
Biased much? Why not say no to Republicans, they put us in this mess time and time again.
reply