• 0 Posts
  • 14 Comments
Joined 13 days ago
cake
Cake day: June 24th, 2025

help-circle

  • Possibly the opposite.

    There were plenty of little Nazi groups around the United States before and after WW2, but they weren’t allowed in polite company after the war. Not even among conservatives. Some of them stuck around using anti-communisim as a cover, but they were usually asked to leave if the mask slipped too much.

    The Greatest Generation fought Nazis, and they weren’t going to let overt ones have any political power. They may not have had sophisticated ideas about what a fascism is (Ur-fascism wasn’t even published until 1995, most people still haven’t read it, and it’s not even the final word on the subject), but they weren’t going to ally themselves with overtly ideological ones.

    The Greatest Generation is also dead enough that it no longer has much political power. Just the situation the mask-off fascists have been waiting for.




  • Microsoft’s original plan was to own the living room the way they own the office space. Not just gaming, but all your movies, TV, shopping, etc. could be done through the XBox.

    Kinect was a particularly big jump in that regard. There were demos of AR-type stuff where you could see yourself wearing clothes you might want to buy. You could move around and the clothes on screen would move with your body. There’s some promo videos of that, but nothing concrete ever came of it.

    Now they have slagging sales for two generations, and a AAA industry that struggles to make a real hit and is laying off a lot of people. They can’t even hold onto the core gaming market much less get their tendrils into the rest of the living room. They then release a handheld that’s basically an upgrade of an existing handheld that wasn’t selling very well, but now with XBox branding.

    Is this a problem for the rest of us? No, not really. There’s plenty of alternatives, and we don’t need to care. Is this the result the money people at Microsoft envisioned when they started this ~25 years ago? No, not at all.


  • There is so much more context behind that. The two are not at all comparable.

    The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

    Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”

    You’re completely ignoring what happens in the first paragraph of NATO Article 5. The Security Council only comes into play if they get off their ass. The Security Council rarely gets off its ass, because too many countries that hate each other have veto power. NATO will continue operations for the defense of its members regardless.

    None of that is true of the Budapest Memorandum. They bring it up with the Security Council, and that’s it.

    Are you going to keep digging this hole?









  • frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zonetoSelfhosted@lemmy.worldJellyfin over the internet
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 days ago

    Nah, setting non-standard ports is sound advice in security circles.

    People misunderstand the “no security through obscurity” phrase. If you build security as a chain, where the chain is only as good as the weakest link, then it’s bad. But if you build security in layers, like a castle, then it can only help. It’s OK for a layer to be weak when there are other layers behind it.

    Even better, non-standard ports will make 99% of threats go away. They automate scans that are just looking for anything they can break. If they don’t see the open ports, they move on. Won’t stop a determined attacker, of course, but that’s what other layers are for.

    As long as there’s real security otherwise (TLS, good passwords, etc), it’s fine.

    If anyone says “that’s a false sense of security”, ignore them. They’ve replaced thinking with a cliche.