To some abusive people: I have no fucking clue what and why you're attacking this time. IDGAF. 11 Years of harassment and abuse must be fixed.
| gender | male |
| languages | NL, EN, science, computers |
cobratbq - cranky-by-design
@cobratbq
- 63 Followers
- 300 Following
- 5.4K Posts
Software {engineer, hobbyist}, watches anime, scifi, grim/dark, fantasy. War-movies are not my thing.
This one's mine https://mastodon.social/@passwords/116454850752085452, everyone hands off.
It's also interesting how every solution provided on time is either not good enough, the "wrong" solution, cheating or otherwise incorrect. Or it is provided "too late" which usually means it evolved and they saw it was going to work so they staged a scenario in which it proved to work "just after the deadline", or it is dismissed with a cheap excuse, usually because it proved a more critical matter that wasn't at all desirable to acknowledge.
Foxes in Love
To some abusive people: latest scam, with the sounds you played, didn't work. It is still 11 years of organized large-scale harassment and abuse. There was never an excuse. You started with harassment, abuse and deception. You're trying to prolong it with harassment, abuse and deception. There was never a "noble" cause. There are no "rules" and your excuses are false.
You should all be jailed.
You should all be jailed.
It seems that user-namespaces are always a trade-off of pros and cons, whether you choose to use them, use them only for privileged, or not at all. Granted, I consider specifically the benefits to sandboxing. Still, the matter that it creates an isolation specifically for users and then have syscalls/kernel think it's a general system-namespace privileged call, is just tricky.
It is underatandable that there are paths and edge cases that might run into privilege escalation. I understand that this is a highly complex piece of software.
Then not having the possibility to set a capabilities mask for the functionality you certainly do not want/need, is really just a missed opportunity.
User-namespaces feel like an off-by-one. Having the ability to isolate users within a separate namespace is great. Choosing to have the namespace specifically in the domain of user-identities is fair. Having the kernel treat uid 0 like system namespace's true 'root' user and then having to do rely on additional checks, and sometimes failing to do so, is messy, but understandable for smth that needs maturing.
To some abusive people: the right called 'right to privacy' is about the ability to protect information being an inherent part of the individual.
The fact that I disclose that a public document exists, is independent of any malicious action you take based on this information. It is silly to be "extraordinarily protective" of inherently public information that is easily locatable, recognizable and identifiable.
Your malicious actions are your own.
Did they lie again today? As always when they risk losing their abusive deceptive shitshow?