In home environment: no, because Windows Defender is pretty good now. Some people install other antimalware solutions, but there's no great reason to do it.
In enterprise environment: definitely, for both compliance, management and actual security reasons.
Maybe they actually do know their audience, and HN crowd is just... not that audience? I am pretty sure most people have no idea what's wrong with Norton, and the name just sounds vaguely like cybersecurity.
>So if you don't create new repos from mystery meat template repos, you should be ok.
You should be OK, but if attacker takes over your user (or any user in your forgejo instance) they can execute code on the host server - as you said yourself. In other words, it allows them to achieve remote code execution, so it's a RCE.
They could, and this is definitely a RCE (a Remote Code Execution) vulnerability. GP confusion stems from the fact, that you (the forgejo user) must execute this attack on "your" instance. But of course the problem is that forgejo user can, in fact, be malicious, and use this vulnerability to escalate their priviliges from user to server.
It can't be done without authenticating first, but there's nothing about RCE that says that it must be sent from unauthenticated connection.
You overthink this. Participating in HN is in no way like democratic voting. And sometimes it is my (or yours) comment that is the problem.
Let's not pretend that 90% of HN comments are world-changing. Maybe you are different, but a lot of my would-be comments are knee-jerk reactions that won't actually bring anything substantial to the discussion. Often in political comment chains. Yes, I feel I'm right, but it's still probably not worth posting. I really think that sometimes stopping before posting is better for everyone involved.
I also have well thought comments, where I share my thoughts on things I'm an expert in. I do post them. But a lot of the comments is not really that valuable.
>comments I spent literal hours on[2]
It may make you feel better that I saw both of your posts before (I may spend too much time on HN). They are good, though a bit verbose - maybe this intimidates people. But in this case I agree with GP - if I was spending literal hours responding to comments here I should definitely stop myself.
That was not the issue pointed by GP. They noted that the comparison was between two companies, a whole industry.
>That’s a weird comparaison between one or two brand and "an industry".
In other words, Impossible and Beyond are not the only companies in meat replacement space. They are probably the largest, but comparing them to the whole industry makes no sense.
What is a burger? If it looks like a burger and tastes like a burger I'm fine with calling it a burger. Nobody complains about halloumi burgers. Why is "coconut milk" OK, but "soy milk" is not? Blood sausage has nothing similar with the regular sausage. Hey, there are people who put pineapple on dough and call it "pizza"[1]. I agree that industries should not be able to intentionally mislead people, but informing customers was not the primary motivation behind those laws - protecting existing monopolies was.
Requiring pork, beef, etc to come from the actual animal sounds completely reasonable to me, and although I do like vegetarian products that try to taste like them, they should also be easily identifiable as not being the actual meat.
But burger, sausage and nugget are just about the shape. Restricting that only to meat is silly. Veggie burgers have been around for multiple decades. There's absolutely nothing misleading about that.
Also consider the many products that are something-flavoured (often fruit, but also other things) without containing the actual thing, yet clearly marketed with the thing they don't contain. Or fake chocolate. Pizza containing mostly fake cheese. Is that not far more misleading?
It may be perfectly clear to you. For me (a non-native speaker) reading the first verse required a significant focus and I still didn't get what the author meant (only the general vibes).
IRGC, Hamas, Hizballah and maybe others are far right organizations, so I don't think this is purely left/right.
And what about signal? I am pretty sure many violent/terrorist groups use it too.
I don't have an opinion about this group, because I didn't even know it existed. But, like often with things related to the free speech, I think this topic is more complex than you make it out to be.
Their supporters in the west form alliances with the left.
I do not think you can meaningfully fit them in a left vs right classification. There are many groups in the world that take bits from left and right. There are ethno-nationalist communists, for examlle.
Yeah, the basic alliance is that anyone who wants to harm the USA nominally is ok with working together regardless of contradicting underlying ideology.
That why you'll see russia, iranian, marxist, and anarchist supporters/ideologies all using the same talking points.
Far leftists are quite open about how they think the USA is the evil empire and that Russian, China, Iran, ect are the "multipolar" world that they support.
You must be thinking of progressives who merely want free healthcare. Sure, an average bernie fan who wants some more government programs doesn't want the USA to fail. Instead, I am talking about the campists, the far lefties, or the "tankies" that they are sometimes called.
Supporting actual attacks on shipping lanes, or supporting the russian war, or attacks done by designated terrorist organizations is what I am referring to that some of the hard leftists support.
Yes, those things harm the USA, to explicitly be doing things like supporting the russian war on our allies.
> you're saying the far-right and far-left terrorist orgs will support each other?
I am saying that far left people put out support for what are arguably far right, religious extremist groups yes.
The labels of left and right get blurred, also. The people are who are right and support russia's invasion of ukraine, for example, often use very similar rhetoric to what supposedly far left people also use.
Its very similar talking points. Very similar arguments. The only main difference is that the far right will say they think jews control the world, whereas the far left will make the same exact argument about "zionists" instead.
But often time the exact argument, word for work will be the same, with only a single word replaced. Even stuff like "ZOG", which used to be vocabulary only used by neonazis is now being used by all sorts of people.
Very clearly untrue. Just search for "people waving hamas paraglider flags" on Google and you will find plenty of sources[1], like this.
Basically every movement/organization on earth has activists who support their activities, why would Hamas be any different? There are people everywhere who don't mind violence/killing and there are people everywhere who are anti-semitic. You think the intersection of those two cohorts is empty?
People who are anti-semitic and violent call themselves Proud Boys and Restore Britain.
It's true that a lot of radical leftists do "critical support" for Hamas, just like they used to with the IRA or ETA. But that's the same thing as the US government supporting Islamists against the Soviet Union and Reagan funding right wing militias in Nicaragua.
It's defending a resistance movement on some parts of their agenda even if you disagree with the rest, because you think they're fighting for a good cause against a common enemy.
Some Hamas leaders, individuals within the party, want to massacre Jewish villages to drive all Jews out of Palestine. Almost no one in the student protests was defending that. But when it's the other way around all the Western leaders rush to defend the Israeli government saying it's just two insane ministers in a big cabinet and the rest will talk them into submission. That's clearly not true when you see a lot of their ideas getting implemented.
If the conflict was just Israel against Hamas it would be one of the situations where everybody involved sucks and there's no clear answer to anything so you should stay neutral. But the Israeli government is treating it as a war against Palestine where they allow their soldiers to rape and kill civilians, you can hear generals publicly setting kill targets and "security" policies that were already close to Apartheid level are getting stricter every week. They see every Arab as a legitimate target.
That tips the balance to the point where you can argue that supporting any resistance, even violent nationalist Hamas, is the only right move.
I appreciate your wanting to introduce nuance into the discussion, but nuance isn't really needed here. Two commenters replied to GP saying "Pro-hamas activists don't exist", which is untrue. That was my claim, and that was basically all GP said as well (with the additional assertion that such people are not voting for Trump). Why they are supporting Hamas is beside the point.
This conversation is basically the "it's not happening" > "it might be happening" > "it's happening and it's good actually" meme, though admittedly not by one person.
My point was simply that foreign "far right" organizations are not the same as the "right" organizations belonging to the left vs right paradigm in the United States. Hamas is not equivalent to the Republican Party.
Fastball here is the only one that wasn't triggered by this observation.
>But eventually you'll need to put down a credit card on file to buy a domain, and that domain needs to be owned by somebody.
You don't need to pay to host onion websites (.onion domains are free and have no central registry). Though that of course really limits the possible outreach, because most people are not used to browsing onionsites.
In enterprise environment: definitely, for both compliance, management and actual security reasons.
reply