Thick skin

People sometimes excuse their own lack of tact by saying that people need to develop thick skins, and they're only helping out. But needing a thick skin doesn't mean that nobody is ever going to be nice to you again, does it? There are plenty of people being mean in the world, or just being tactless. Be one of the good ones.

Mokalus of Borg

PS - I like to think I am.
PPS - I guess most people want to believe they are the good guys.

Neutral vs good

Most people are not bad people in the same way that most rocks are not bad rocks. It's kind of the default setting of sitting there, doing nothing. Being a truly good person takes more effort than avoiding the things you shouldn't do. That's neutral, not good.

Mokalus of Borg

PS - And if you're always neutral, that's pretty bad.
PPS - It's hard to win that way.

How to respond to a DDoS attack

If someone attacks your website with a distributed-denial-of-service (DDoS), demanding money to make it stop, what's the best possible response? I suspect the best idea is to do absolutely nothing, or to reinforce and update your infrastructure. My reasoning is that the criminal has a particular business model and a limited set of resources at their disposal, large though those resources may be. Their plan is to bring down your website, get you to pay up, then move on to another target. If you make no response at all, what can they do? Your website is already offline. Their worst possible response is to keep it offline for longer, but that means they're devoting more of their resources for a longer time to a target that won't pay out. It becomes worthless to them. Before too long, it becomes far more worthwhile for them to devote those resources elsewhere, since they stand to actually profit from a different target.

Like spam, if everyone, worldwide, stopped responding to any of it, it would all completely dry up overnight, except for a few weirdos who get off on the power and don't care about the money.

Mokalus of Borg

PS - But, like spam, if it wasn't paying off, it wouldn't exist.
PPS - Crime doesn't pay, but it does scale well.

Anti-net-neutrality is just a denial of service attack

Here's an interesting way to illustrate the hypocrisy in the anti-net-neutrality debate. Feedly was recently hit by a DDoS attack, slowing down traffic and making the site unusable. The criminals behind the attack demanded money to make it stop.

Now, read that again, only substitute "Netflix" for "Feedly" and "Comcast throttling" for "DDoS attack". Both of these events are crimes (though I am not a lawyer, so don't take my word for that). One is being considered for legalisation in the USA. The only difference is that Feedly was able to solve the problem without paying up.

Mokalus of Borg

PS - This kind of shennanigans has to stop.
PPS - I mean on both sides, but definitely on the cable company side first.

Gender-flip to understand gender issues

If you have to gender-flip something to understand why it's so bad, then go ahead and do it. It still says something is fundamentally broken with our society, though. We can't see injustice unless it's personalised to our point of view, but if it gets the job done, I think it's worth doing.

And if you gender-flip some gender-based social justice issue and it still sounds like it's not a big deal, there's only one real possibility: you haven't understood what you're looking at.

Mokalus of Borg

PS - This post pretty much inspired by this series of gender-flipped Tomb Raider images.
PPS - They're kind of ridiculous, in the best possible way.

Netflix vs Comcast

The Netflix/Comcast agreement demonstrates that Net Neutrality is not a case of poor, overworked, underpaid ISPs finally getting their due from freeloading content providers. It's a hostage situation or a protection racket. "Pay up, or else all your lovely bandwidth could have a nasty accident". This is bandwidth, by the way, that everyone has already been paid for once. Netflix already pays its ISP to provide a service, and Comcast customers already pay Comcast and Netflix for the bandwidth and service, respectively. The only reason Netflix had to pay Comcast again is that Comcast has the power to kill Netflix traffic. That's not a normal commercial agreement. It's extortion.

Mokalus of Borg

PS - At least, for their part, Comcast seems to have used the extortion money to make Netflix faster.
PPS - It just shouldn't have been Netflix that had to pay for it.

Hulu and VPN

Hulu recently blocked paying customers who are accessing the service internationally via VPN software. This seems like a particularly vindictive move, but, really, Hulu doesn't want to cut off their international customers. Someone forced them. No company says "we're making some money from overseas customers. Is there a way we can do less of that?" So it's pretty clear to me that this wasn't their idea. It wasn't their idea to geo-block international users in the first place.

So who wants Hulu to be far less useful to international customers? The same entertainment companies that have archaic distribution agreements for different world regions, and also refuse to pay much attention to those non-USA regions.

Mokalus of Borg

PS - As soon as no entertainment can leave the United States, they'll be happy.
PPS - I mean no entertainment, ever, in any form. Zero exports. That's the win condition, apparently.

Browser security just got a lot worse

A massive security vulnerability is being introduced to the Firefox web browser by Mozilla, on purpose, and it is to remain there for the forseeable future.

Mozilla is adding closed-source DRM to their otherwise open-source web browser, Firefox. Nobody in the world is happy about this except for a few media CEOs that we should still be able to push around. Now here's the worst part. Because of the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause, it is illegal to tell people about security vulnerabilities in DRM systems. Responsible disclosure of security vulnerabilities is the only thing keeping your software up to date and virus-free. Since one of those closed systems is getting into your web browser and nobody is allowed to tell anybody about security vulnerabilities, it is no longer safe to do anything secure online. These DRM systems will have security vulnerabilities, and they must be kept secret, which means that only the people who discover them will know about them, they will never get fixed, and they will be used to steal your credit card numbers when you are online. Believe it. The internet just got a lot less safe so that Netflix could hallucinate that they are finally safe from piracy.

Mokalus of Borg

PS - Don't worry, it's not just Firefox. All browsers will be getting DRM soon, to protect themselves from you.
PPS - And, of course, making themselves far more vulnerable to malware and identity theft in the process.

Capitalist environmentalism

The capitalist solution to industrial pollution is to sell the polluted environment and therefore make it somebody's economic problem to stop the pollution. The problem is that the polluting company can just buy the river (for instance) and dump their effluent into it and be legally within their rights. It's their river and their factory, so they can put their waste in it. There is private responsibility for common property, then, but a conflict of interest.

Mokalus of Borg

PS - I don't think anyone is consciously attempting this.
PPS - Yet.

Specialised currencies and revoking value

When you pre-pay for phone call credit, you are really just releasing some funds to your phone company to use. The same is true of my public transport card and store gift cards. This is what makes it all the more infuriating, to me, when companies decide that you've had long enough to use that money and confiscate it. This is routine policy in all the examples I've noted above. So what gives companies the right to take your money for the crime of taking too long to spend it? I think there's something deeply wrong there.

Mokalus of Borg

PS - I don't have a pre-paid phone, but I've had store gift cards expire.
PPS - That really should mean "refunded".

Political incentives

On Extra Credits, a sort of gaming-philosophy-related YouTube channel, there's a video about political incentives, focusing on the USA, because that's where the video creators live. It makes some incredibly good points about members of congress being insulated from the effects of their actions, and ways to fix that, such as tying congresspeoples' wages directly to a multiple of the average US wage, and giving them exactly whatever health care options are available to an ordinary citizen of their age. Those are stellar suggestions, I think, and they would definitely result in a much more fair, balanced, involved and trustworthy government. We should enact those measures immediately, is my point.

The problem comes next. The people who would be 100% responsible for setting up those laws are the very same people who would be voting themselves a pay cut and more limited health care options as a result. That's not going to go down so well with the current members of congress. The crippling arterial blockage we are trying to remove is the very reason many of the most powerful congresscritters are there in the first place: it's a cushy job with tons of benefits and very little in terms of actual negative consequences of your actions, plus the ability to vote yourself more money at any time. Trying to root that out of the system is going to be practically impossible, and keeping it secure once it is miraculously accomplished is going to be a constant ongoing battle. As soon as you say "congressional wages will be 2.5 times the national average", someone will introduce a bill to say "actually, let's make it 3.5 times" and so on.

Because Congress is in power over itself, it is going to drift further and further into corruption as time goes on. The deeper it gets, the harder it will be to root out. In the end, a total collapse of the political system may be required to bring about the necessary change, and that assumes you can keep the warlords and backstabbers out of the revolution.

Mokalus of Borg

PS - I think political systems naturally drift towards corruption.
PPS - Or basically every one of them has so far, some slower than others.

Mockery and insecurity

One of the first things John Scalzi says about his Creation Museum visit article and photo essay is "if you don't want me to mock your beliefs, get better beliefs". I don't think he's kidding, because of aforementioned extensive mockery being the very purpose of the visit, the article and the photo captions. In other words, his position is "I will not mock you unless I don't like what you believe". That's not a moral position. That's schoolyard bullying. It's the same as saying "I will mock your beliefs", but it puts the onus on you. It looks like it's up to you whether you get mocked/punched/bullied, but it's really not.

Mockery doesn't change beliefs, it only reinforces prejudices when used this way. This form of mockery is rooted, deep down, in insecurity. If I am insecure about myself, then I need everyone else to validate my choices, my beliefs and my physical appearance by conforming to it. Your sheer comfort with believing something different to me is a threat to the security of my personal world view. It must be attacked.

The point is that, while you could change who you are, what you believe, the clothes you wear and the way you cut your hair in order to appease someone, why should you do that? They're the one with the problem. You are free to express your beliefs (as long as you can defend them with logical argument), just as I am. Instead of mockery, how about we have a proper discussion? We might not end up agreeing, but we should end up understanding our own beliefs better as a result, and that is always a good thing.

Mokalus of Borg

PS - I just know the "get better beliefs" line is going to be repeated without thought.
PPS - Just know that, if you repeat it, it's more of a threat than a hilarious observation.

Sexism at the office

A few times during my office-worker career, the admin assistants or receptionists have had occasion to complain that people are leaving unwashed dishes in the sink, and that they are having to wash them up. "We're not here to clean up after you", they say in the meeting. At this point I always notice the older men smirking and looking at each other as if to say "What does she think she's here for, then?". I realise that attitudes towards gender roles have changed over time, and that institutional sexism has, in theory, gone away, but it always stuns me to see that it was only a couple of decades ago that wearing a skirt in an office was the clear signal that you are here to look after the important men-folk who do the real work. It's funny how quickly and how slowly that change has happened, is what I mean. Quickly because it was not that long ago that it was normal, but slowly because it's technically not gone yet.

Mokalus of Borg

PS - That's usually the way deeply-entrenched ideas die.
PPS - By failing to be passed on to the next generation.

Secret accountability is not accountability

FISC/FISA is clearly not working as a procedure for keeping the NSA in check. Why? Because "secret accountability" is a contradiction in terms. It isn't real accountability, it's conspiracy, because the wall of secrecy is drawn around the two of you, and all information is forbidden from leaving, ever.

Mokalus of Borg

PS - Self-policing always devolves into no policing.
PPS - Because it's easier that way.

Limited term offers

The time-limited offer sales pitch is meant to pressure you into a bad decision. Remember that the next time you find yourself presented with an offer that is "only available for the next 30 minutes!"

Mokalus of Borg

PS - The shorter the time, the sooner they expect buyer's remorse to kick in.
PPR - Or common sense. Either one.

True fans

Some fans take it on themselves to police "true" fandom, weeding out the heretics so that only the faithful in the Church of SciFi (or whatever) remain. They obviously do damage to fandom in general, their chosen obsession in particular and to authors and creators everywhere, at the same time as thinking either that they are doing someone a favour, or perhaps that they are somehow "winning" at fandom.

These are nerd bullies. "Oh, you can't name every actor who played The Doctor's companion? What makes you think you're a true fan, then, eh? Are you gonna cry now?" That's really the only motivation I can think of that makes sense. It's not a good motivation, just a motivation. These people may have been bullied at school for their unusual tastes, and when they find themselves in a place where everyone is a lot like them (a convention or just a fan subculture), their misplaced rage and a sense of localised superiority makes them lash out. Finally they can be the tiny king of this tiny little hill!

They're not going to be put off by the creators of their chosen show/movie/book/comic saying "cut it out", or at least not permanently. They need to heal.

The only other reason I can think for behaving this way is when you think someone is faking as a publicity stunt or as a way to sell something, like someone putting bad perfume in a turtle-shaped bottle and wearing a turtle suit to sell it to fans of the Ninja Turtles. That person may be pretending to be a fan, but the best way to get them to stop is to pay them no attention or money at all. Maybe what they're doing is damaging to the "brand" of the fandom subculture you're in, but being a bully about it is damaging too. Walk away, let their parasitic business fail and keep loving what you love.

Mokalus of Borg

PS - True fandom is gleeful and positive and inclusive.
PPS - A true fan just wants everyone to experience their joy.

Sinners Anonymous

I have the phrase "Sinners Anonymous" in my head as a description of what the church should be. It's not complete, and it's not that original either, but it's a radical reimagining of how people in church should relate to each other, and how we inside the church need to appear to those outside. We come to church because we need help. We recognise our brokenness and that of our brothers and sisters. We aim for virtue, but we haven't arrived yet.

As I said, though, it's not a complete picture. If the church only focuses on being a support group for morality, we will lose track of Jesus, and he was the one who started his church among the downtrodden in the first place. Jesus' followers were a bunch of prostitutes, tax collecters, addicts, sick and sinful. The ones, he said, who "need a doctor". That is all of us, whether we've learned to hide it or not. Sinners Anonymous is how Christians should look to other people, inside the church or not. Come join the rest of us who struggle with sin. Maybe we can learn together.

Mokalus of Borg

PS - Or maybe it's still so incomplete as to be meaningless.
PPS - Though if it helps bring more forgiveness and understanding, that could only be good.

Fighting bad reviews with photo evidence

How can we combat fake or bad reviews online? When a business owner pays for dozens of fake reviews to puff up their business, that's bad, but it's also bad when someone posts a fake negative review, or when someone merely threatens to do so in order to get better treatment. That last behaviour has seen many hotels demand that no "unauthorised" reviews be posted at all, just to protect themselves from those crazy people.

We could try to take the "pics or it didn't happen" route, dismissing any reviews that don't include photographic evidence. In some cases, that would be enough, but it wouldn't necessarily stop aforementioned crazies from ruining a hotel room before taking pictures as proof.

Mokalus of Borg

PS - In short, requiring photos and video may help, but won't be the silver bullet.
PPS - There is never a silver bullet.

NSA-approved encryption

The NSA has been approving various encryption software lately, saying that this or that one is a good program to use for your personal security needs. I don't know. I feel like getting your encryption software from the NSA these days is like buying your home security system from "Honest Brutus' X-Con Totally Not Fake Alarms".

Mokalus of Borg

PS - You don't even get to act shocked when it fails.
PPS - Or when you find out who broke it.

Feminism in games

I watched a good YouTube video on the "damsel in distress" trope in video games, where a girl or woman (love interest or not) is the quest object, disempowered and unable to escape on her own, requiring a man to rescue her. In this type of scenario, for all the difference it makes, she might as well be the protagonist's favourite hat. It's a good investigation of the subject, and I recommend watching it. It was funded by a Kickstarter campaign that somehow produced hate mail and death threats to the producer of the video. I guess it's a good thing her research topic wasn't "video games producing violent misogynistic attitudes in young males".

Because of that (I assume), comments were disabled on this video, which made me just a bit sad for a minute, because I thought it sucked that someone so knowledgeable, passionate and successful has to silence all comments lest she be harassed. Then I remembered that these would be YouTube comments, subtracting value just by existing, and I felt better.

Mokalus of Borg

PS - YouTube seriously needs some spam filtering on comments.
PPS - Or, failing that, ban anything that just consists of "FIRST!".