• 4 Posts
  • 245 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
Cake day: October 25th, 2023
  • voracitude@lemmy.worldtoPrivacy@lemmy.ml•Signed up for Equifax to freeze my credit, password can not be longer than 20 characters
    11·
    30 days ago

    Oh boy. If you think this is bad, you should try waiting a few weeks or months after you’re signed up this time, then sign up for a new account using your current details, just with a different email. Spoiler: if you can answer the security questions, you’re home free.

    And remember that between the Equifax leak and more recent hacks, at this point, every sensitive detail for every member of the economy is now in the hands of bad actors. If they want your shit, or into it, they’ll social engineer it.

    Should passwords have maximum character counts? Sure, to prevent overflow attacks (or whatever) by pasting five different analyses of the movie Primer as your password. It should be longer than 20 in any case. But are there other, way worse security issues? Yes.

  • voracitude@lemmy.worldtoPeople Twitter@sh.itjust.works•What the hell
    42·
    1 month ago

    It’s not a strawman argument, though. The question does not follow the pattern:

    The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

    • Person 1 asserts proposition X.
    • Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.

    Now I will quote the post to show that it does not follow the pattern:

    So if one of the models was a man in a suit with a lampshade on their head you would have no problem and this would be perfectly normal?

    There’s no statement that the argument being made is that “it would be fine if the actors were male instead of female”. The poster is asking a question, to paraphrase: “is this what you’re saying?”. This is a common way to phrase this question (even if it is not a good way to phrase it) when asking it honestly, so it would be unfair to assume the worst interpretation.

  • voracitude@lemmy.worldtoPeople Twitter@sh.itjust.works•What the hell
    81·
    1 month ago

    Re-reading the post, I absolutely agree that it was phrased badly and unfairly ascribed a view to @Dentzy they hadn’t espoused, but I still don’t think it was fair to characterise it as a strawman. As to malice, I find Hanlon’s Razor to hold more true than Occam’s, and I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt wherever reasonable if I’m up to it.

    Personally, I find @Dentzy’s opinion that it wouldn’t be okay in any scenario (meaning with any combination of people) a little odd. The specific problems for women in tech make this carry connotations that wouldn’t be there if it were adult men under the lampshades for example. But, I can understand and generally agree with the idea that “presenting people as objects is not okay”, even if I would put an asterisk on it because I think there’s artistic value in that presentation in some situations (for example, as an illustration of the way that rich people or corporations view the majority of us).

  • voracitude@lemmy.worldtoPeople Twitter@sh.itjust.works•What the hell
    286·
    1 month ago

    Not the person that asked the question, but I am someone who asks those types of questions:

    They asked if you would feel the same if the only thing that was different was it being a man in a suit instead of a woman in a cocktail dress. They’re trying to understand where exactly your objection lies - and you did answer, at the end, which is useful. It seems like your objection to this display is in fact in presenting people as objects; not just because it’s women, not because of their clothing, not because of where it is or who’s doing the hiring. Is that right?

    But the question was not a strawman, or insincere; it was a valid comparison question which appears to be from someone looking for an answer. I think you read aggression into it that was not there. Edit: Okay, I understand why you’d take that impression on the re-read and I can’t say for sure it wasn’t insincere, I’m just giving the benefit of the doubt. They need to work on their communication skills, but that’s hardly uncommon, and it doesn’t make the question a strawman.

    Another question then, and this one is also sincere: there are plenty of art installations that present people as objects in some way. Is that fine in your book? If so, is this objectionable because it’s advertising? I would think you’re fine with it in art of i had to guess, but I’ve been surprised before!