Just read dohpaz42’s comment. They literally copy and pasted for you the relevant text: How to check if you’re infected already, and how to protect yourself in the future (which means apply updates).

researchers from security firm GreyNoise reported Wednesday

Why sure, I would be happy to help you find literally the very first link in the article, which is in the third paragraph. Since you asked politely and all.

Also, don’t click on that Facebook ad

See my other comment; I think the same user contingent that likes VPNs tends to also want maximum convenience, which isn’t Tor. Of course they frame convenience as the only relevant factor, instead of acknowledging that being the tradeoff they’re making.

I haven’t really played around with VPNs to make the comparison. Tor breaks for a significant number of sites, but it’s still a pretty small minority; “only works for a small number of sites” is a comical untruth.

If Tor breaks more sites than VPNs do (which I think is likely), I think it is because Tor is secure. It is easier to do malicious things behind Tor because you have, for all intents and purposes, an unbreakable shield of privacy while you are doing those malicious things. And so, site operators tend to block it more readily than they do VPNs.

Whether you want to make the tradeoff in favor of convenience or genuine privacy is, of course, up to you. It’s not surprising to me that the Lemmy userbase is more or less unanimous in favor of convenience. Of course it is fine if you want, but you don’t need to misrepresent how things are to make it the only possible choice.

Tor Browser

Done

I dislike the phrasing “data rape.”

Most times of state-created suffering do not feel abnormal to most people.

Milton Mayer interviewed a bunch of German civilians after World War 2, and most of them remembered the concentration camp years as good times and had a positive view of Hitler. Only the professor among them really even had much awareness that anything important had been happening during that time; most of the others were just concerned with issues of family, their work life, their economic situation, and so on.

As long as they were not fired…

What the fuck are you on about?

The USSR imploded because it was a corrupt and violent kakistocracy

I don’t know that the US had anything to do with the coup, but it didn’t work anyway, and they were much more friendly with the anti-coup people than with the coup. I could be wrong but I thought it was by hard-liners who were opposed to Gorbachev’s reforms and wanted to keep the USSR together back according to its old principles instead of liberal reforms.

Nobody sponsored ultranationalism in Russia except by accident. The IMF and BIll Clinton sponsored gangster capitalism, which took off like gangbusters and defined the gruesome arc of the next several decades of Russian government. It’s one of the great sadnesses of the late 20th century, the promise of what could have been for the Soviet people in the wake of mostly peaceful anti-communist revolution simply getting replaced by more misery.

Fuck the nato. Fuck putin.

Lol

Is that really so far off though?

Yes you fucking cretin

Notice that the one US president who actually has been building concentration camps and operating the Gestapo, shares with you a strong dislike of NATO.

Dude I didn’t pick this weird pedantic fight and get all upset about what Wikipedia says and what a problem it is. You did. Now that it turned out you were making it up, it’s all of a sudden weird for people to care about it. Okay.

Wait, so up there it looks like the actual truth is not “Some years later I tried again but you could no longer make changes IIRC. Just checked, info still missing.” but in fact that the exact information is already in the article.

Glad we had this talk lol. I mean it’s a pretty trivial thing to get upset about even if it were true, I can somewhat believe that some random person might have reverted your edits for bad reasons, but I am wholly unsurprised to learn that there was no grand conspiracy and the information in the article has been corrected now even though you specifically said that it wasn’t.

It strongly looks like you’re making things up lol

It is trivial to check what changes someone did or didn’t make 10 years ago on Wikipedia, if you know which page of Wikipedia it was on. Which page was it on?

What does the article mean “Juniper Networks, despite being a “Good Article”, is also mostly PR”?

It’s all part of their various horseshit attempt at making something which is pretty simple an innocuous into something that it isn’t.

Within the last few days, it looks like someone raised the issue on this guy’s page, the arbitration committee is getting in touch with him, and he’s saying he’ll get back to them. Presumably there’s a minor conflict of interest and they’ll look over the article and make sure he didn’t do anything slanty to them and then tell him to stay away from COI-like articles in the future.

There’s absolutely nothing sinister here, and they are stringing together a bunch of misleading stuff (like “mostly PR”) to make a mountain out of a molehill to discredit Wikipedia. I’ve noticed a bunch of people doing this, presumably there is some organized campaign which actually is sinister in the way they’re implying WP is, that is trying to make people think badly of them.

Because frankly you don’t know enough to know any better.

I had more typed, but what’s the point. I feel like I’ve said everything I really wanted to say on it. Like I said, enjoy your point of view and I hope it goes well for you.

“Never delete anything on your computer because it might be needed”?

No. That’s a whole new sentence.

I gave two other options, besides that one option.

Also, even within the one option, if at some point I upgraded my Linux system and I got an empty /var/www directory, it would never in a million years occur to me to say “Well that’s stupid I don’t want that directory” and remove it.

I might think it’s stupid that it’s there when I don’t have apache. But, deleting it because it’s stupid that it’s there… you know what? I feel like I already addressed this with the /tmp and /var/tmp example. I can feel that it’s stupid that there’s two of those instead of one. I might be right. You’re not wrong about it being silly that MS has done this. But reacting to that feeling by deleting things until my system matches how I think they should have set things up is a recipe for broken stuff.

I’ve reiterated this point three times now, which is enough. You seem committed to not absorbing it. Good luck with your computers in the future. I hope your system administration philosophy serves you well.

?

I’m just being serious. If your software has some files and directories, and you start fucking with them, it might react badly. It doesn’t really matter if you feel like the existence or layout of them is unjustified in some way. Just let them be, or else switch to some other software, or else take responsibility for making sure stuff won’t break from you fucking with them. Those are the options. “Delete it on purpose and then whine about how it shouldn’t have been set up that way in the first place, if stuff breaks” isn’t one of the options.

Also, it’s kind of a side note, but it’s also weird to me that this is the hill to die on that Windows is up to something. Yes. It’s been openly spying on you, degrading its own functionality for amusement, and hijacking your computer to do messed up stuff for a long time. Making an empty directory in the root of C: isn’t something you need to get any level of panicked about in addition. There’s other stuff you can worry about.

Yeah. It’s not even a matter of “do you need it.” I don’t need both /var/tmp and /tmp. I only need one. But, if I respond to that by deciding to delete one or the other, some stuff will fuck up. That’s how computers work.