If it makes any difference, this piece led me to another one of her pieces covering an event directly involving my local community of which I was not previously aware, so I am thankful for that.
Note that Obama's birth was a conspiracy around 2008, before 8chan existed. I would argue that "the Donald" on reddit was a driver of Trump's online popularity. This argument is not for striking down individual websites as much as it is for pervasive rumor-quashing.
One could look toward China's internet policy to measure the success of playing "whack-a-mole" at the rumor-level. Propaganda there still gets made and spread, it just stays online for minutes at a time before deletion, and so by the time people see it they have no way of asking for clarification on its truth.
I sincerely hope there's some effective middle ground between allowing the kind of unrestrained rumor/conspiracy propagation that puts unhinged people in public office and Chinese-style ubiquitous law enforcement. Neither option is particularly attractive.
Over $23 million paid by automakers funded these scummy advertisements. Thankfully we know this from campaign finance transparency. The ads say in fine print that they are paid for by the "Coalition for Safe and Secure Data" and that top donors include "the Alliance for Automotive Innovation."
A Coalition campaign finance report from 2020 [0] shows $23 million in receipts from the likes of Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, and others.
Expenditures in that report show who is helping them produce these ads.
Which reports? Reports that require disclosure of political advertising spend?
Yes. They're incredibly important. I want to know who is paying to try to influence an election. Many times, actionable information is exposed through these reports.
AIUI the German solution is to make their cars so difficult to repair and maintain, and require so many specialised tools, that nobody who isn't an authorised dealership will want to touch them.
If that had really happened, that premise would have explained the sino-soviet split.
In https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7xo7rtSwwI&t=1615 (warning for the rural US, or for rural PK: female nipples) I don't know much of what the TV commentor is on about with regard to the French Quarter, but I'm pretty sure I heard "exploitation" and "bourgeois" in there.
Thanks for the local colour. Is the Tulane Card still accepted for drive-thru daquiris?
Edit: from wikipedia "Garrison explains that cover stories were circulated in an attempt to blame the killing on the Cubans and the Mafia but he blames the conspiracy to kill the president firmly on the CIA who wanted to continue the Cold War." I don't know about CIA specifically (nor do I know the Mafia be completely distinct from them), but there is the coincidence that Kennedy and Khrushchev, having averted global thermonuclear war together, soon after were both cancelled.
Edit2: as long as I'm already thinking of conspiracy theories, sometime I'll have to rewatch Cool Hand Luke to see if a valid retcon would be that Boss Godfrey doesn't have much to say because his name (in northern italy, where he served under Karl Wolff) was Marco Gottifredi, and he changed it when he escaped down a ratline at the end of the war to the US south. But he's laconic because his english still isn't so good.
But it's more than that, though. If you closely read the works of some modern-day conservative intellectuals, such as Gingrich or Scalia, you can trace their arguments to, e.g., radical continental (esp. French) philosophy, both 19th and 20th century. A couple of years ago I read an interview where Gingrich basically admits to being a nihilist, albeit driven by his disgust with liberal politics. Truth and facts literally don't matter to Gingrich; his goal is the destruction of the modern liberal state as he sees it; yet, as an intellectual (he's at least well read, if anything), he's naturally driven to rationalize things, so it's unsurprising he effectively ends up in much the same place as, e.g, radical, Marxist leftists driven to develop ideological models in their attempts to undermine the capitalist state and its institutions. In a famous speech Scalia admits he believes American constitutional jurisprudence should reflect French Civil Law jurisprudence, which principally emerged after the writing and adoption of the U.S. Constitution. (Therefore, Scalia's jurisprudence is fundamentally in opposition to originalism, even though it emphasizes textualism and contemporaneous dictionary definitions. It's continental radicalism disguised as American conservatism.)
It all stands out because since its founding American intellectuals, especially mainstream and conservative political intellectuals, have leaned far more heavily toward Scottish Enlightenment philosophy, literally and aesthetically. Americans tended to be more pragmatic, less abstract, and, frankly, generally conservative compared to any of their continental counterparts. Everything about American political philosophy and popular political sentiment has historically been relatively muted; that is, until the modern era that has seen the Republican party ascendent. This has been true even at the liberal extreme--compare Abolitionism, Progressivism, and the American labor movements to their contemporaneous continental European counterparts. (We largely inherited this culture from Britain, of course.)
Likewise, haven't you ever noticed the rather conspicuous conversions of many conservative intellectuals to Catholicism? Or the fact that all the conservatives on SCOTUS are Catholic? (Gorsuch attends an Episcopal church, though.) Even as a Catholic myself, it sort of makes me wonder if the fears of the anti-papists are coming to pass. Of course, Catholicism is very conservative, but it's conservative in a continental European sense, has been shaped by radical continental intellectual dynamics, and culturally continues to have a far larger surface area exposed to radical intellectualism. The Jesuits are great examples of how zealous conservatism can morph into a radical--and even leftist radical--ideological culture. I believe Catholics have risen to the intellectual ranks of conservative factions precisely because they're more familiar with and adept at developing and weaponizing radical ideology. (Relatedly, most of the liberals on SCOTUS are now Jewish, and not coincidentally it was early and mid 20th century European Jewish immigrants who injected radical continental thought into American intellectual circles, greatly influencing the course of American liberalism. There's an obvious stereotyping and prejudice in the types of people the Senate is comfortable confirming, both on the right and the left.)
So it's not just about the adoption and display of "truthiness", it's the deliberate development of ideological arguments and models that undergird "truthiness", in the same manner that conservatives once accused radical mid-century leftists (i.e. Marxists, some extreme feminists, etc) of shaping liberal politics. Nationalist, populist political waves have traveled across the world, but arguably its in America where that wave has a distinctively sophisticated intellectual underpinning, and one might even argue that the global phenomenon originated in the U.S. because of that. Modern American conservatism emerged to oppose mid-century liberalism, but seems to have adopted and recontextualized many of its arguments--moral relativism, identity politics, etc.
> When you want to open a port from a client, you run 'knockknock', which sends a single SYN packet to the server. The packet's IP and TCP headers are encoded to represent an IND-CCA secure encrypted request to open a specified port from the source IP address.
Yeah, the documentation is dated. Not only does it point to an old version, but it would probably be best to get it from the GitHub page he links to. Even then, there are more active forks, so they may be worth checking out to see which would be best to get on board with.
Re: sniffing, if I were implementing port knocking I would use the "single packet authorization" variant like in knockknock, which makes sniffing much less useful to an attacker.
I just prepend a secret letter to every possible ssh account on my server ('root' becomes 'jroot') and so that way "ssh root@myserver.com" can never work even if you know my root password. And this way my defense is opaque to attackers passively monitoring my network traffic (the username is encrypted in the ssh protocol).
Oh shit, I just gave away my secret on a public forum...
Ha ha, fooled you! I use a different secret letter in actual practice!
(Or do I?)
p.s. Pretty sure port-knocking offers less protection than this scheme.
