This mental checklist of things that point to me having adhd is growing uncomfortably large. Is there anything that can point to someone not having adhd?
In my experience my adhd makes normal people things harder, like yes sometimes everyone needs a minute to process information, sometimes everyone forgets why they walked into a room, sometimes you’ll get way too excited on a subject and so on
But you know everyone also pees but when you pee 60 times a day you usually see a doctor
I keep coming across relatable posts followed by someone saying it’s ADHD and it’s making me paranoid whether it’s just good ol internet spreading fake news or memes or if I actually have ADHD. I don’t think I have ADHD but I have to question myself every time this happens.
All things that are symptoms of ADHD are also things that everyone experiences sometimes. It’s when they become detrimental to daily life that it might be ADHD.
Think of it this way. Many ‘normal’ people can exhibit different symptoms that get associated with ADHD. With people who are diagnosed with ADHD, they must pass a certain threshold number of these symptoms and severity.
It’s all a spectrum. Our minds, in some ways, are brute forcing ways to approach survival. Each individual’s brain settles on some patterns that they determine work for them, and when you look at the collective, we can end up with very different ways of thinking but they are all based on balancing the number of neurons devoted to various tasks like visual processing, audio processing, social skills, various physical skills, etc. ADHD is based on how attention is tuned, both how long you can pay attention to something you might not want to and also how your attention is divided between tasks you’re focusing on vs other things going on around you.
Personally, I don’t really give that much attention to things going on around me. I’m usually either actively doing something or lost in my thoughts. This has the advantage of being able to think through things, but at the cost of missing things around me, which can include someone addressing me. It’s pretty much an always on thing. I do hear it and my brain can often process it after I realize I’ve been addressed. But I’d guess that most people are like that when they are actively concentrating their full attention on a task. Or thinking, I’m sure non-ADHD people do that, too, but the balance between time spent focusing on thoughts vs processing general surroundings might be different.
Though tbh I have no real idea. My entire experience is inside my own head and I can only guess at how different things are from brain to brain (and to what level other organs contribute to that, since they’ve all got neurons, and chemistry that they all play a role in can have huge effects, too).
The actual name is auditory processing disorder, and I do actually have that, as it’s often comorbid with ADHD. But your version is funnier and made me laugh.
I have a hearing defect that affects how I hear speech. It sometimes takes a second or two until the second level support in my brain could parse what was said.
I work in a hospital and sometimes people have these air pumps on their legs that prevent blood clots. I often joke when disconnecting them, “We have to take those off so you aren’t dragging it behind you like Marley and Marley.”
I have a decade of experience in film and have worked on some cool shit and I logically know that just like what I have done at the end of the day it’s basically a job like the one that I am doing… But I envy them that one credit so fucking hard and will beg them for stories of what it was like as though I am a starry eyed child who wants to be them when I grow up.
Yes it is. Have you been sleeping for a year? We all thought you were just pretending, but you lay in that bed snoring the whole of 2024.
Wake up, otter! Stop d0zing through entire years! 2025 starts tomorrow! Don’t trust your phone, NTP glitched while you were asleep and it’s also wrong!!
The amount of messed-up that would be in this “prank” would be so…messed up.
The girl seems like she was excited and happy over the proposal, which would later turn out to be disappointment, anger, and sadness when she finds out it was fake.
She would be embarrassed that he doesn’t want to marry her but she really wanted to. There’s nothing wrong with one partner being ready and the other not, but having that displayed as a mockery is embarrassing.
She didn’t recognize that it was his twin brother, which is troubling. Even if she was unaware that he had a twin, I would expect her to pick up on some flags that it wasn’t her partner: 1) different mannerisms, 2) very limited knowledge of shared experiences and her particular tastes, 3) no jointly understood scripts for showing affection, and more.
When she is legitimately proposed to, she will have at least some considerable doubt that it’s real and prevent her from engaging safely and freely, thus damaging the real proposal.
She will now have to decide if she’s okay with marrying into a family that pulls “pranks” like that. Also, considering that her partner’s brother was fine with doing that, she may wonder if she is missing some serious flags with her partner.
Note: Please excuse me if I’m being too judgemental, picky, or similar. I found my cat of 3 years dead today, so I’m definitely more vulnerable and emotional.
Honestly I agree 100%. I feel like there are some things that shouldn’t be joked about, and to actually go through with a pretend proposal like that is fucked up beyond words.
The bended knee schitck should go away. Marriage should be approached the same way companies approach mergers: via sober meetings and lawyers. Both sides should understand that marriage is more than romance and sex, but an economic and social union too. As with any mergers, a lot of money will be involved, so there is no space for surprises.
Bending the knee absolutely should stick around, there are many people (my wife included) who WANT that sort of gesture
You should 100% have an idea of what they’ll say before you do it though. I knew my wife was going to say yes, it was merely picking the correct time and place (which I did, and as far as I know, am the only one to do so)
Anyone who springs it on their partner without at least some attempts at subtly discussing marriage is an idiot who deserves if it blows up in their face
At least for my wife and I, the practical conversations all came before, by the time I proposed, we were already both in agreement about how we would handle finances, kids, etc. The actually proposal absolutely should be romantic, because it’s not “I have suddenly decided we will marry, we’ll figure it out from here” it’s “I’m now ready to take the big step in going from planning to spend our lives together, to actually committing to do it”
There’s plenty of room for both romance and practicality, and having a romantic proposal certainly doesn’t exclude having practical sober conversations before hand
Agreed. We did the same. We talked about that we wanted kids. We talked about finances. I told her if I ever had kids I wanted to be married. It makes custody and a lot of things simpler, finances easier and once you got kids you are bound together anyways. She agreed and said if and when we make it to that she would love got me to propose and all that.
Then when we decided we were ready for kids after moving to a bigger apartment a few years later and all I proposed to her during a vacation. She didn’t expect it but it basically was all as we talked about. I got 2 silver rings with our favourite gems in it and a sentence engraved that meant something to us on the inside and some other small fancy details. Luckily her favourite gem was amethysts as those are cheap. I even snuck out one of her favourite earrings to get a color match to that one. It was like 500 total in a custom ring shop where the local bikers gets their membership rings made. I was told and shown by the bikers once that the ring making lady was the best in town. They were right.
My wife liked the engagement rings so much she wanted to keep them as wedding rings. So I guess I did well enough.
Yeah, it’s terrible. The worst part though is that I’m sad he lost his life. It’s not that I wont have him, but that he can’t live anymore. He deserved so much better than that.
Sorry for your loss too. To me, the thing with losing animals is that they’re so sincere. You know exactly what they like doing and how much they care about you, so when it’s gone, it’s clear what’s missing from the world.
It’s not the doctor and it’s def not the insurance company (although insurance companies are evil in their own way).
Insurance companies make money from limiting what services they cover for you and by negotiating doctors down into lower rates for the services they do cover; the less money they spend on your services is more profit for them.
The people actually making money and charging obscene amount, are
facility owners (hospital, clinics, urgent care) who produce nothing, but simply have the capital to own property and start the business
drug companies that charge thousands percents of profit simply because they can (remember the epi pen scandal?)
The doctor seeing you wants to make a living doing something they enjoy and excel at; the facility owners are who hire people educated in medical coding just to tack on every possible fee they can, stopping just short of fraud.
That ibuprofen they gave you? It really cost less than a dollar to produce, package, and ship to the facility; but because you were inpatient when you swallowed it, well now it’s $35
That doctor that came by while you were sleeping just to glance at your chart without actually consulting or giving any review of care plan? That’s $600 because fuck you
Having worked in healthcare and insurance for 14yrs now, it’s just fucking depressing to see how everything works.
Yes and no. For ads to make any kind of revenue, you first need an user-base. And if the first thing you do is riddle them with ads, it will probably really hurt the sales.
So, the first generation of smart glasses should be pretty OK as far as ads go. Of course, they will gradually introduce them, but that will hopefully take several years before we get to that point.
And inevitably some FOSS/privacy focused alternative will show up, just like you have with GrapheneOS, PinePhone and similar. Or, assuming they will let developers side-load their apps without going through proprietary store (which may be unlikely, given the current trend of locking everything down - on the other hand, there is a pretty large market of developers who wouldn’t touch anything Apple-level of closed and someone will definitely want to cash in on it), you will eventually get OCR ad-blocks for billboards outside. I bet that would be one of the first apps developed once possible.
And there are plenty of MAGA dipshits who aren’t rednecks. If you watched the Mummers parade today, you saw a bunch of Delco bigots who wouldn’t know a tractor from a turnip truck. But those guys sure looked pretty in their dresses.
Exactly, and a lot of the people who were at Jan 6 were from upper middle class suburban white america who flew in to DC taking time off from their cushy jobs to larp as revolutionaries.
This is a big point. I briefly took a job in Northern California two years ago and met more openly-racist bigots and transphobes than I ever met in my Appalachian hometown
There’s an important distinction to be made between rednecks and hillbillies. The south would like you toe believe that anything non-urban is redneck, this is not so.
Hillbillies are generally a specific type of non urban. Here in Appalachia we refer to them as off the mountain. You don’t just run into hillbillies. You have to go where they go.
The rest of us are rednecks. I don’t think redneck is “everyone south and rural” but it’s pretty close.
Some of the costumes are rather intricate and impressive. And then sometimes they’re racist. People who defend the Mummers try to pretend the bigots have been removed and prohibited frim returning, but this year some bigots attacked the crowd while waving MAGA flag.
The musical acts are good, though. Lotta fun for the kids.
It’s a joke about Green Day’s recent concert where they replaced the line “I’m not a part of the redneck agenda” with “I’m not a part of the MAGA agenda” in their song American Idiot.
Close, but 2000s had some very intrusive and malware ridden advertisements. Popups everywhere, aggressive banners, malware and random browser toolbars being installed to your system. Complete wild west of unrestrained advertising. Online ad blocking didn’t start with Ublock Origin, the first tipping point was in the 90s and 2000s, where famously clean and effective search engine Google swooped in to “save us” with their Chrome browser blocking popups by default, and their own concept of ‘ethical ads’, which were mostly unobtrusive and text-based (what happened there?). Which was nice for a while before Google exploited the popularity that bought them to turn into an inescapable ad monster.
I reject “sus” being zoomer exclusive. Among Us has been a huge hit for 5 years now, was popular across demographics, and made an appearance in Glass Onion, which is the boomeriest Millennial movie ever.
I agree, but for a different reason. I had an Aussie friend that said “sus” all the time on IRC, and that was in the 00’s, so it well predates Among Us.
Ok, maybe suss is Australian. I was surprised to see it listed with "on cap" because I've heard suss being said all my life by a wide range of people, but I did grow up in Australia.
I have appropriated “sus” and “yeet” and sometimes “gucci”…I think those don’t even come from the same gens of slang, but they feel right in a sentence. Especially yeet.
I’m pretty sure my friends and I have incorrectly appropriated yeet. We’ll use it in the normal way but we’ll also say yeet like sweet or hell yeah. We’re all upper 20s now so it feels rather hilarious.
Once you consider that “yeet” is the opposite of “yoink”, it really seems like it’s actually a millennial word. Though interestingly, my spell check considers “yeet” correct but not “yoink”
I get most of my slang from among us and then I learn the correct usage on tiktok and then I purposely do it wrong because aging is fun and I’m a parent.
Thank you! I thought I was going mad because I distinctly remember saying “sus” when I was in highschool in the early 2000s. It was definitely used both as “go sus it out” but also “don’t sus us miss” was something we said all the time when a teacher tried to catch students smoking behind the portables.
So it sort of just feels like Gen Z expanded the definition.
I had never viewed this commercial before today. After reading the comments here, naturally I wanted to see it for myself and followed a link. I honestly didn’t see anything other than standard sibling interactions. The early morning “dreamy-style” lighting (prime coffee drinking time) is the only thing that gave off a romantic atmosphere of any kind. From the comments here it’s clear others see something between the two across but it feels like a bit of a reach to me.
its why we were the slacker generation and the laziest generation and the … well they didn’t start the generation name calling with the Millennials, you could say.
I think if you go into it knowing they’re siblings, it’s all fine and normal. The rest of us saw the commercial blind, naturally interpreted the relationship as romantic and then were surprised to learn they’re siblings and the recalibration was funny. If you have no context, and you’re trying to interpret what the relationship is, at the beginning it definitely resembles a romantic relationship more than a sibling friendship
I thought that was a really weird thing to say. I wonder if Folgers also thought the two were romantic so they half ass fixed with “Just make her say ‘sister’ to establish they’re siblings and call it a day.”
Someone I used to work with gets paid a truly ridiculous amount of money because she changes jobs around every 14 months to 2 years. She hates every job she takes and is constantly worried that her boss hates her in every role. I don’t think she’s happy, despite the huge pay. I’d rather be happy. I work to live, not live to work.
That’s the thing, paying bills doesn’t make you happy, it just temporarily eliminates the drop in happiness that would occur if you didn’t pay those bills.
Money can’t directly buy happiness, but it certainly smooths out the path. Also, money may not be able to buy happiness, but not-money can’t buy anything.
I agree with you that the pursuit of an ever-increasing bank account is probably not a route to happiness (or more importantly contentedness, happiness is fleeting), but the reality of our world is that not having a livable amount of money tends to put direct blocks in front of your contentedness, which having money tends to dissolve.
I’m in a unique and enviable position where my work is basically nothing on the day to day. It pays enough to get by, barely, but it gives me so much free time that well… That aspect of work makes me happy lmao
Yeah, i have a friend like that. Gets paid twice (maybe 3x?) what i do but has no friends and is miserable. Well, things have been getting better for him at least and i’ve been making more money lately so i guess things are looking up.
They’re not “muscle hunks”, but half of the people in this picture are definitely much above average in muscle mass.
There are no opinions/personal experience necessary here. Research has quite clearly shown that a decent amount of muscle, more than average, but not by a lot, not an outrageous “muscle hunk” amount, is the most attractive sexually.
Of course this doesn’t hold true for all women, tastes differ. And as well, muscle is not the most important thing in male attractiveness. Male attractiveness is a mix of very many things.
Using “also” in your statement makes it an addendum, not agreement. Your phrasing implies the original comment was incomplete, which is not typically how you would phrase it if you were agreeing with a statement the commenter made. Your comment came off more like “or you could just do this!”
Yeah most of those guys are fit as fuck (except jack black, sorry buddy). This post is talking about people trying to get like Arnold Schwarzenegger but to get a body like any of these guys requires serious gym time.
The post isn’t about privacy, if it was, faxing wouldn’t be on there. I’d wager a strong guess it’s about convenience on one hand while choosing to be inconvenient on the other.
Edit: or maybe it’s more about high tech in some sectors and low tech in others, still not about privacy.
Fax is unencrypted. Encrypted versions apparently exist but that’s not what Japan and Germany use.
And that aside my mom regularly gets sensitive patient data via fax at her workplace because the number is one digit off some doctor’s (bonus points for the inverse also happening, and her also working with sensitive data). Far less likely to happen with email. At most encrypted fax is equally secure.
It is however point-to-point plus doesn’t go over a public network and the routers of “random” 3rd parties (as IP does not necessarily route your packets always via the same path, and NNTP - the e-mail protocol - is even worse).
Faxing is probably is inherently more private simply because generally there is just 1 company controlling the entire network it travels through (i.e. the phone landline network), though I would hardly call it secure.
Properly encrypted e-mail is more secure with regards to the contents but it leaks metadata (that there was a message of a certain size from a certain sender to a certain receiver at acertain time) to a lot more 3rd parties than a fax would.
Yeah, you’re right - it’s SMTP not NNTP. Considering that back in the day I used to telnet to port 25 of my uni’s server to send e-mails portraying as one of my teachers to take the piss of my friends and hence knew at least some of the protocol, I must be getting old to confuse the acronyms.
But yeah, the main point is not the network being “public” (in the sense that anybody can access it) it’s that - as I explained but you seemed to have missed - the intermediate hops for an e-mail travelling on the internet can be owned by just about anybody and, worse, not necessarilly in your country working under local laws - routing will often send things around in quite unexpected tours on a physical sense depending on network topology - whilst the nodes the fax data travels on a phone network are generally owned by just 1 company or 2 (the latter in countries with multiple landline providers if you send it from a phone in one to the phone in another, as the network topology is much simpler and all providers connect to each other directly).
If your data goes over at most only 2 networks owned by very specific companies it is inherently safer from eavesdropping that if it goes over an unknown number of networks owned by an unknow number of companies. This is not the same as saying it’s “safe” - it’s just one relative to the other, rather than an endorsment of faxing.
Also there are usually laws around eavesdropping on phone calls, from the old days, whilst it’s the Wild West out there when it comes to those operating intermediate nodes eavesdropping on e-mails.
Frankly, if you can’t send the data encrypted, then faxing is probably safer from a privacy point of view (it would take a crooked telecoms operator risking their license, a Court Order or physical access to eavesdrop on it), but if encrypted e-mail is safer at least content-wise, though as I pointed out plain e-mail with unencrypted headers leaks meta data even if the contents is encrypted.
Yeah, those were the “good old days” before the openning of the Internet to the broader public when most protocols were all naive and innocent, with zero security consciousness, and SMTP servers didn’t even require a username:password pair from clients to send e-mails with specific From fields.
Mind you, it’s still possible to connect to most SMTP servers using the unencrypted protocol - as it sits on a different port than the stuff using TLS so can be enabled alongside the encrypted protocols - though it’s highly inadvisable to use the plain text protocols (the reason for which, by the way, goes back to my point about how IP can route packets through who-knows-were, so unencrypted stuff - most dangerously your password to access your e-mail - can be more easilly eavesdroped), but at least even the non-encrypted stuff nowadays requires a username and password.
As for your “point” about local law well, if you live in a coubtry next to those guys faxes will not go via there, ever, e-mails might very well go via there and end up in the modern equivalent of those tapes. Interestingly enough on this, when Snowden revelatiosn came out it was discovered that the UK surveillance apparatus (which is way more abusive than even the US) was eavesdropping on their side of the submarine cables that crossed the Atlantic from their coast and thus managed to eavesdrop on a significant proportion of the internet communications to and from all of Europe.
Do you genuinelly think a surveillance society would refrain from watching people’s Internet use but not refrain from doing so for their phone landlines?!
Because that makes no sense at all, especially considering that in earlier days it was actually easier to record Internet usage (less data and already in digital format) than phone lines, though nowadays data storage, processing power and even speech-to-text engines make eavesdropping on phone lines easier.
In fact even supposedly Democratic nations have been caugh doing mass surveillance of people’s Internet use (that’s what the Snowden revelations were all about) - because there were no clear laws on that - all the while phone line surveillance does have clear laws, dating from way back, that require a Court Mandate for it to be lawfully done: it was and is legally easier to do mass surveilance on the Internet even in supposedly Rule Of Law Democratic nations that phone line surveillance.
Nowdays client-server and server-server communication is ecrypted and signed, so no an issue now.
This is probably true, but in a very unsatisfying way. It’s not accurate to say this is not an issue now because mail servers talk to each other with opportunistic encryption — if both ends say “hey, I support TLS” they’ll talk over TLS, but if either end claims to not support TLS they’ll default to plain text. This is deeply concerning because it’s very possible for somebody to mimic another server and get the connection downgraded to plain text, bypassing TLS altogether. There are standards to deal with this, like DANE, but most large e-mail providers don’t support this… The other more recent standard to address this is called MTA-STS, but it’s much weaker than DANE and can potentially be exploited (but at least gmail and outlook support it, I guess). E-mail security is in a weird place. It’s slightly better than the “completely unencrypted” situation that people seem to think it is… But it’s also pretty much impossible to guarantee that your e-mail will not be sent over plain text.
AFAIK DKIM/DMARC now is mandatory on most servers.
DKIM and DMARC don’t have anything to do with this. DKIM is a way for e-mail servers to sign e-mails with a key that’s placed in DNS in an attempt to prevent e-mail spoofing, but this in no way protects e-mails you send from potentially being read in plain text. DKIM is also not necessarily mandatory, and you can potentially get away with just SPF. Many mail servers also do not have strict sender policies, which could potentially allow for spoofing in certain situations. Also neither DKIM / SPF provide any protections if an attacker is able to poison DNS records.
GPG. Or other E2EE.
I mean, yes, but that’s not really the point. PGP has essentially nothing to do with the e-mail protocols aside from the S/MIME extensions. Almost no institution is using PGP to secure e-mails. You could also encrypt something using PGP before you sent it over the fax lines in theory.
Neither TLS provide in such case. Attacker can request ACME cert.
Depends whose DNS you can mess with, but yes! It may be possible to poison DNS records for one e-mail server, but ACME certificate providers like letsencrypt (supposedly) try to do DNS lookups from multiple locations (so hopefully a simple man-in-the-middle attack will not be sufficient), and they do lookups directly from the authoritative DNS servers. This is, of course, not perfect and theoretically suffers from all of the same mitm problems, but it’s more thorough than most mail servers will be and would potentially limit who would be in the position to perform these attacks and get a bogus certificate issued.
With DNSSEC and DANE you are even able to specify which TLS certificate should be used for a service in a TLSA record, and you can protect your A records and your CAA record which should make it much harder to get bogus certificates issued. Of course you need to trust the TLDs in order to trust DNSSEC, but you already do implicitly (as you point out, if you control the TLD you can get whatever certificate you want issued through ACME). The reality right now is that all trust on the web ultimately stems from the TLDs and DNS, but the current situation with CAs introduces several potential attack vectors. The internet is certainly a lot more secure than it used to be even 10 years ago, but I think there’s still a lot of work to be done. DNSSEC, or something like it, would go a long way to solving some of the remaining issues.
Most emails are unencrypted. And indeed, in the medical profession, they were widespread. Nothing can protect from the sender putting in the wrong number or email address. I’ve received some seriously sensitive emails not meant for me because the people made typos and the recipients had the same family name as me (not sure how the email server decided it was close enough and delivered them to me).
I’ve also read for some businesses, it was critical to get an instant receipt that the fax has been properly received.
Now, I’m not defending using obsolete fax machines, it just had one advantage over email but today there are much better alternatives and dedicated platforms.
No, they are not. They are not end-to-end encrypted but they are encrypted between your PC and your service provider, between service providers and between service providers and receivers. End-to-end encryption is needed to defend against your service provider or entities that can order your provider around but not against random hackers snooping around in your network.
Fax on the other hand is never encrypted and also not signed, so there is no integrity protection. Fax is far, far less secure than even standard email. Businesses require fax often for legal reasons because laws are written by people with no technical understanding not because of any technical reason.
No, they are not. They are not end-to-end encrypted but they are encrypted between your PC and your service provider, between service providers and between service providers and receivers. End-to-end encryption is needed to defend against your service provider or entities that can order your provider around but not against random hackers snooping around in your network.
This is true AND untrue at the same time! It’s true that most e-mail providers will talk to other e-mail providers with TLS, but it’s trivial to downgrade the connection in most circumstances. If you can man-in-the-middle e-mail servers you can just say “hey, I’m the e-mail provider you’re trying to talk to, I don’t support TLS, talk to me in plain text!” and the senders will probably oblige. There’s a few standards to try to address this problem, like DANE (which actually solves the problem, but is unsupported by all large e-mail providers), and mta-sts which is a much weaker standard (but supported by gmail and outlook). In practice there’s a good chance that your e-mail is reasonably well secured, but it’s absolutely not a guarantee.
That depends on the specific TLS setup. Badly configured TLS 1.2 would allow downgrade attacks, TLS 1.3 would not. I highly doubt the “in most circumstances” line, my guess would be that at least the big ones like gmail don’t allow unsecured communication with their servers at all. If not for their users’s privacy, then at least to combat spam.
That depends on the specific TLS setup. Badly configured TLS 1.2 would allow downgrade attacks, TLS 1.3 would not.
Why would TLS 1.3 prevent this kind of downgrade attack? The issue is that TLS has never been a requirement for e-mail servers, so for interoperability they only do TLS opportunistically. Even if you configure your own e-mail server to only talk over TLS, nobody else knows that your server only speaks TLS (or speaks TLS at all), so if somebody is pretending to be your mail server they can just claim to only speak plain text and any sender will be more than happy to default to it. If you support DNSSEC you can use DANE to advertise that your mail server speaks TLS, and even fix the certificates that are allowed, but senders will actually have to check this in order to make sure nobody can intercept your e-mail. Notably both outlook and gmail do not support this (neither for sending nor receiving!), they both instead rely on the weaker MTA-STS standard.
my guess would be that at least the big ones like gmail don’t allow unsecured communication with their servers at all
They absolutely do :).
I highly doubt the “in most circumstances” line
That was maybe too strong of a statement, at least with the recent adoption of MTA-STS this is at least less trivial to do :). The intent of this statement was more “if you are in the position to be a man-in-the-middle between two generic e-mail servers it is trivial to downgrade the connection from TLS to plaintext”. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was hard-coded that gmail and outlook should only talk to each other over TLS, for instance, which should prevent this for e-mails sent between the two (I also wouldn’t be surprised if this wasn’t hard-coded either… There’s sort of a bad track record with e-mail security, and the lack of DNSSEC from either of these parties is disappointing!). Ignoring special configuration like this, and without MTA-STS or DANE these downgrade attacks are trivial. Now with the advent of MTA-STS you’ll probably have a reasonably hard time downgrading the connections between some of the large e-mail providers. Though notably this is not universally supported either, iCloud supports neither MTA-STS nor DANE for instance, and who knows about all of the various providers you never think of. This is a bit of a tangent, but a good talk about how large mail providers might not be as well configured as you’d hope: www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwnT15q_PS8
Because a piece of highly debated governance structure, manifest as a piece of technology was put on the “bad” list, (by accedent?) implying the old way is out of date and switching is as much of a “you dont need to think, its just better” (no brainer) as switching your floppy disks and CRTs for USB sticks ano OLEDs. Tech advancing is usually but not a definite good thing.
Question: do the Japanese actually care about privacy? I know I do, but if you were to ask a Japanese person why does their country use cash, would they say “We have considered a system of payment cards and decided against it for privacy reasons” or would they just shrug and say “I dunno, I’m not in charge of payment systems, I use what I have”?
Not necessarily. It might be privacy but it could also be a combination of other reasons too - a cultural aversion to paperless transactions, a lack regulation for electronic payments, lack of a decent indigenous payment system, lack of financial safeguards, prevalence of fraud / skimming devices etc.
Some European countries were more into electronic transactions than others but with stuff like SEPA, chip & PIN, contactless payments I think most people are just fine using electronic payment unless they have reason to control the transaction in some way. For example I usually pay pretty much everything electronically but I still pay taxis and most restaurants with cash. Also tradesmen if they’ll give me a discount for cash.
I used to work in a shop when I was younger, and the older generation always asked for “cash discount”. Why on earth would we do that, my boss said to me. We need the money to be in the shop’s bank account, not laying around somewhere and not being used.
I remember carrying several 100k of our money, late at night, to our banks night safe and drop it in. That sucked. And they charged us for this too
Cash is off the books so there is an incentive for certain kinds of businesses like tradesmen to take cash because it still works out cheaper since they don’t have to declare it to the taxman.
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.