I think there's a bit of "whoosh" happening...

Genuine question, where are the extreme left rising? I haven't seen any but that might be the algorithms/my news sources talking.

Far right parties gaining significant popularity especially in France and Germany. It's not great for the neo-liberal centre who created and perpetuated the economic downturn we're all in and indicates a failure of the left to present a coherent alternative. There's a lot to unpack about it. France has already dissolved their parliament and triggered an election because of these results.

I've been programming for too long, my brain just autocorrected the typo so initially didn't get the joke...

Lancer, I need to finish my Curse of Strahd campaign first...

Yeah then you start debating the merits of hate crime as a concept and I am not even slightly equipped to deal with that!

I had similar queries around "biological sex" vs gender a while ago and my understanding now is that biological sex is surprisingly hard to define. You can't go by genitalia because sometimes a person creates the "wrong" ones. You can't go by chromosomes because again, sometimes they're different. And you can't go by other physical traits (Adams apple for example) because again sometimes it's there, sometimes it's not, completely unrelated to sex. You can sort of go by hormones but not really (just look at professional sport) so it's all a bit of a mess. It's way easier for me to just accept there's a spectrum and move on, because to me it's way harder to actually define where the line is than to just dismiss the line entirely.

In the nicest possible way, what do you mean by "both sides" in this context? One side says that trans people either don't or shouldn't exist and the other side says they should exist. I know that may sound extreme or combative but that's fundamentally "the debate" so I genuinely want to understand how you reached this "both sides have merit" stance that some people close to me also take but I've never understood.

The risk here is slightly overblown or misrepresented. Just because a fork exists doesn't mean that anyone has even read it, let alone run it on their system. For this to be a real threat they would have to publish packages with identical or similar names (ie typo-squatting) to public package repositories which this article didn't have any information on but which is a known problem long before AI. The level of obfuscation and number of repos affected is impressive but ultimately unlikely to have widespread impact to anyone besides GitHub.

Yes I was wrong to say that this an implementation detail rather than a protocol problem as the OpenSSH release notes to prevent this vulnerability include extensions to the SSH Transport Protocol, however I still believe that the headline is sensationalist at best since it can and has been protected against by patching ssh clients and servers. It would be entirely unreasonable in the majority of cases to simply stop using SSH on the basis of this vulnerability and that's why I think the headline exaggerates the problem. The Register has a much more measured take on this including comments from the paper's authors that people shouldn't panic and try to fix immediately.

Bit of an alarmist headline here. The vulnerability has been patched in the most common clients (openssh) and it was because the protocol wasn't being implemented correctly. To say that the SSH protocol "just got a lot weaker" is just not true.

I disagree with the $ per hour framing (it's more about the value the entertainment provides than the amount of time it takes to consume) but yes you should pay for your entertainment. I got far too used to paying nothing or close to nothing as a student that it took me a while to readjust.

Why are people weaving social media and the internet into a single thread? The internet is so vast, social media makes up a tiny sliver of it.

Because to most people outside Lemmy the "internet" (by which they mean the world wide web but that's me being a pedant) IS social media. There might as well not be anything outside the walled gardens of social media to them because they've been conditioned to only stay on one, maybe two platforms for years at this point. The old "what's a browser?" question these days gets answered with "I don't need a browser I have Facebook". Completely nonsensical to us but to them it's totally natural. Not being derogatory about them or anything but the 60k lemmy users and however many million on Reddit are not the majority. Facebook with it's 3 billion (with a b) users, IS the majority of the internet.