There is Brassic episode about stealing bull sperm (although from a farm, not a bank).

I think it’s S3e01

Fyi for point 2, you can sign with SSH key stored on a hardware token (e.g., yubikey).

Looking at how this started, it’s even more depressing.

Already debunked

https://bsky.app/profile/tannerofthenorth.bsky.social/post/3lp572utm5c2c

Objdct storage is anyway something I prefer over their app. Restic(/rustic) does the backup client side. B2 or any other storage to just save the data. This way you also have no vendor lock.

Wow, those are big networks. Obviously I suppose in case of AWS it doesn’t matter as no human visitor (except maybe some VPN connection?) will visit from there.

As someone who bans /32 IPs only, is the main advantage resource consumption?

I presume you mean running Plex in host namespace. I don’t do that as I run the synology package, but I can totally see the issue you mean.

Running in host namespace is bad, not terrible, especially because my NAS in on a separate VLAN, so besides being able to reach other NAS local services, cannot do do much. Much much much less risk than exposing the service on the internet (which I also don’t).

Also, this all is not a problem for me, I don’t use remote streaming at all, hence why I am also experimenting with jellyfin. If I were though, I would have only 2 options: expose jellyfin on the internet, maybe with some hacky IP whitelist, or expect my mom to understand VPNs for her TV.

(which doesn’t harden security as much as you think)

Would be nice to elaborate this. I think it reduces a lot of risk, compared to exposing the service publicly. Any vulnerability of the software can’t be directly exploited because the Plex server is not reachable, you need an intermediate point of compromise. Maybe Plex infra can be exploited, but that’s a massively different type of attack compared to the opportunities and no-cost “run shodab to check exposed Plex instances” attack.

No that’s the thing. Plex can also use their infra as a tunneling system. You can have remote streaming without exposing Plex publicly and without VPN. It is slow though.

Well, as an application it has a huge attack surface, it’s also able to download stuff from internet (e.g., subs) and many people run it on NAS. I run jellyfin in docker, I didn’t do a security assessment yet, but for sure it needs volume mounts, not sure about what capabilities it runs with (surely NET_BIND, and I think DAC_READ_SEARCH to avoid file ownership issues with downloaders?). Either way, I would never expose a service like that on the internet.

Not to be “achtuallying” bit VPN is not a way to remote stream, it’s a way to bring remote clients in the local network.

Likewise exposing services on the internet…not really going to happen esepcially for people - like me - that run plex/jellyfin on their NAS.

I don’t have a horse in this race, i don’t use remote streaming, I only ever streamed from my nas to my 2 TVs, and I am experimenting with jellyfin. But for those who do need remote streaming, jellyfin is going to be problematic.

Oh, I guess different school systems, so that didn’t even come to mind to me. At least in my country high school is from 15 to 19, I think lots of people thankfully mature and change after teenage years.

1. Yes
2. Generally yes, but it depends. If I feel like my intervention can actually be useful, sure. For example, if anybody in my acquaintances would be doing that or be a victim of that. “Intervene” also would most likely be reporting or providing shelter, I am not Batman.

Note that both the answers are independent on whether the stalker is a man or not.

Yes, because “men” is such a stringent definition for a hedgemonic class. Half the population on earth, across different social statuses, nationalities, wealth, race, age, and so on. Honestly, claiming this is the “group in power” is absurd.

A completely poor analysis, what there is to reflect on?

Ironically that poster is an Israel supporter. By their own logic every Israeli should be victim of default “suspicion” and be treated like an IDF war criminal, since everyone has the “potential” to be one.

Actually, this argument would be even more compelling since Israel does have elections and you can emigrate/renounce to your citizenship, both not possible in case of manhood.

It’s bizarre that someone could come up with such a poor argument that ultimately boils down to: “people should be accountable for the actions of other people in the same demographic”, without realising there are tons of way you can divide people in demographics.

What places do you go? My pool is super chill, I have seen all kind of uplifting moments. Maybe certain gyms have a selection bias? I don’t know.

Precisely. It’s completely different from doing that in your group of friends, where confrontation is a way to establish common values, and in an internet cesspool where anyway I am going to be moderated out.

Just yesterday I was reading a great article about how social medias compare to TV when it comes to feeling part of a group. “Calling out” people in such places wouldn’t be anything else that virtue signaling (to yourself) to reaffirm your own identity (I stand up to sexism), and at the same time allow those people to reaffirm themselves (I get confronted because I am speaking truth).

Basically it would be at most a performance.

So you need a coordinated effort of thousands of people who will get continuously moderated, banned or censored. OK, I admit that it’s possible, but I think I’d rather invest my time in other ways…

because at least all men share the potential to act out problematic gender roles

Everyone (literally) has the potential to act out problematic gender roles, women included.

protect other men from female criticism because “they are different”

This sentence is legit incoherent. If a criticism doesn’t apply to someone, protecting against said criticism is quite literally preventing discrimination.

If men want to get rid of the collective suspicions

Or maybe we can criticize unfair collective suspicion in the same way summary judgments based on other categories are crticizised. I really can’t see how this argument does not lead to racism, sexism, etc. Being a man is not being part of a club, you don’t decide to join, you don’t subscribe to any value, you don’t have a steering committee that decides how “manhood” is by vote. Why tf anybody should be responsible to change a group that they are part of simply for biological reasons?

Several studies also describe the backfire effect, I.e., people getting more entrenched in their position when confronted with opposing arguments. I doubt I can ever succeed where a decade+ of education system failed.

Also why would I ever recognize a space like that and not run away. “Calling out” is still participation, and why would I want to participate (incl. from the legal perspective). I have the moral obligation to do that because…I am man? As if being a man was being part of a club.