something_else

I mean I agree with you here for the most part, but we’re not talking about hypothetical futures, we’re talking about statistical observations that you can make about current society and the levels of bias present in them. Right now, an individual that says “men are taller than woman” is not likely biased against women. But an individual who says “men are smarter than woman” likely is biased against woman. The discussion is about levels of bias in an individual in our current society with our current genetics for male and female. Yea of course if you had long enough you could breed anything you want into existence, following your logic you could even breed gestation out of woman, and so even that is a ‘bias’ to say that woman gestate. But that’s on the scale of many many lifetimes and not really relevant or practical to our current discussion.

Are you regularly talking to people from Mars? 99% of people you ever meet are going to understand that you mean on average when you say that, they’re not going to think you’re “being biased against women” Humans can barely even define what intelligence is. Most intelligence metrics we have focus on dry logical intelligence which is super fucking narrow. The point I was making is that the first of those statements is easily statistically probable while the second is a massive grey area. Because it’s such a grey area, people’s bias comes into play far more when they form a conclusion or opinion.

Saying men are taller than women is not bias. That sentence implies on average men are taller than women, which is statistically just true. It’s not biased against women. Saying men are smarter than women is bias. Because we have no clear cut way of measuring that and saying it’s true, so someone is using their preconceived anecdotal notions about men and women to make that conclusion, which is the definition of bias.

Its hard to argue that men being on average physically stronger than women is a bias. Or that men are taller on average is a bias. The gestation isn’t the only clear cut difference. It’s when you get into the territory psychological differences that everyone has a different opinion and someone’s bias comes into play a lot more.

Like which ones? The benevolent sexism ones are easier to argue truth for. The hostile sexism ones are the ones that if you are finding yourself agreeing with them consistently you might have some shit to work out…..

I agree with you about PHP 5 being insecure. Obviously that’s not ideal, but it’s unrelated to the file your AV picked up. Actualized.org is not likely to be attacked via CSRF, because it has nothing that would be valuable for an attacker to trick your browser into doing. The worst would be like an attacker tricking your browser into making a post here maybe?? Or changing your password? But the chances of these forms being vulnerable are unlikely. They will be using CSRF protection, which is what that csrfKey thing is related to. The CSRF key in that JS URL would not be able to contribute anything towards a CSRF attack. A CSRF attack does not need a CSRF token. It can be done specifically because a website is NOT using those CSRF tokens in the right places. A CSRF attack is also not going to be able to trick your browser into mining cryptocurrency. Those are unrelated threats. And your AV identified that file as a potential miner anyway, not CSRF vulnerability. The threat we are discussing here would be some JS someone had managed to get loaded in your browser on an actualized page that wasn’t intended to be there. It’s not related to backend PHP vulnerabilities. From looking at that file, there is nothing suspicious happening in that particular JS file. It’s all stuff that looks related to the forum software actualized.org uses. If there was specific miner code, your AV would have identified that exact JS file that was running the miner code instead of just a trace of it. Lots of AV identify false positives. It’s common. That is very likely what happened here. Not everything your AV points out is an actual threat. And it would have to be a serious, serious vulnerability in your OS/browser that allowed a process to use your CPU without it showing up in activity monitor or task manager. Everything in a tab in modern browsers is sandboxed inside a specific process you can monitor and see if it’s using a lot of CPU. Bypassing that is not something a random JS miner online is going to be able to do.

It’s not even obvious what CSRF attack an attacker would actually want to run on the profile page specifically. CSRF attacks involve tricking a user/browser into submitting a request they didn’t mean to, bad ones would be like a password/email change, but those are almost certainly protected by CSRF tokens in professional software like this. See below, especially the “impact” section https://portswigger.net/web-security/csrf But there are no such forms available on that profile page that would be a CSRF risk. And it’s not clear how that JS would play a role either. Generally it would be another website that told the users browser to make a request to a vulnerable actualized.org action/form which does not verify a CSRF token. That’s how CSRF attacks usually work. That JS file is very likely part of the forum software that actualized.org runs on. It’s not maliciously placed there.

I was saying that the /phpinfo.php route should be protected and not publicly visible. Most websites that run PHP hide that info because it’s very valuable for an attacker, actualized.org should have it secured. However I think the chance of that JS file being a miner is pretty low. I had a good look through it and I can’t see anything that suggests it’s dangerous, I work with PHP and JS pretty much every day as web developer. You can also see here that it was identified but marked as not a threat https://www.hybrid-analysis.com/sample/5ac82f8848374af9e726d97ab93344a95948a5b99768358b749246ddede31a18 It’s likely a false positive but still worth pointing out. That javascript_core library is used on lots of forums if you Google for it. They are likely all using the same forum software as actualised. And a ‘CSRF token’ is there to prevent CSRF attacks, not cause them

If there were no differences between men and women, there would have been no point for two different biological sexes to evolve. The degree of difference is what’s up for debate. The differences are on a spectrum, so some women will be stronger than men for example, but on average men are physically stronger because of natural hormones that average biological men have more of. It gets very fuzzy when it comes to mental traits though because the human brain is so flexible. That’s where sexism has a tendency to arise and become problematic.

Lol, you should not be able to view the phpinfo of a website that’s not ideal, neither is running PHP 5 I’m pretty sure that JS script is not a miner, you can see other references to that javascript_core thing online where it’s identified as a false positive. But you were definitely right to point it out @thepixelmonk even if you’re right, there’s no need to be a dickhead about it. I often find myself agreeing with you but you always have such a hostile tone that just isn’t necessary

People make it an ideology. But it likely is possible to deconstruct most of your ideologies, it just takes a lot of effort. So most people who are telling you they don’t have one are full of shit

I got 20% benevolent and 0% hostile. IMO the worldview that the researchers have is that there is no difference at all between men and women, which is the main criticism I have. There are subtle differences and pointing that out is not really sexism.

I’m not saying it can’t work, but it requires some setup. Just randomly calling a girl you don’t know well and haven’t met a few times in person is usually pretty badly received. Zoomers notoriously hate talking on the phone with strangers lol Ive called girls before but it was after texting them and then agreeing to call, I didn’t just unexpectedly call

If you’ve taken those mushroom dosages before you’ll likely be totally fine on the full tab assuming good set and setting

I’ve taken LSD maybe 10 or so times, (ranging in dose from 100ug to 400ug) and I wore contacts every time. I’ve never had any issues, and I’ve never worried about falling asleep in them because I usually can’t sleep for quite a while after taking acid anyway. I usually replace them with glasses towards the end of the trip like I do late in the day even when sober, or my eyes start to dry out. My only concern would be if you had monthly lenses, taking them out carefully while on acid might be pretty awkward. But I have disposables so I can just take them out and chuck them away.

Ehh. Voice notes maybe. Full on calling a girl you don’t know that well out of nowhere can come across as a bit too much, especially for girls in my age range of like 18-25

The only reason this stuff makes the news is because they are unique cases. What you are doing is very similar to not getting on a plane because you read about 50 plane accidents a year in the news, despite the fact there are like 20 million safe flights every year. To me it seems more like you prefer sitting complaining about society and how biased against men it is because it gives you an excuse not to actually take any action. “Oh, I’m justified in not taking action to improve my dating life because I don’t want to end up in jail for sexual assault because society doesn’t like men” is the impression you are giving off

You're pedantically focusing on OPs technically incorrect use of the word install, but it's pretty obvious what OP was talking about. You can infer from context that he is talking about malicious/trojan JS being downloaded and executed behind the scenes on the website. He even uses the correct word 'injected' in the post you quoted originally to give him a hard time about using the word 'install'. That original post more gives me the impression that you misunderstood what was happening, and you're clinging to the fact that he technically used 'install' incorrectly to avoid admitting that. Maybe because English isn't his first language If it was theoretical, no one would do it. But lots of people do. If you have 10k users running that script it will generate some income. There was talk of using that to replace ads on websites at one point. There is always a tradeoff between being too strict and too lenient with AV. If you are too strict, you get lots of false positives, if you are too lenient you get lots of false negatives. Considering the cost of a false negative (real virus not being found) can be very high (identity theft, money theft, theft of your computer resources, leaked passwords, keylogger, nudes sent to the entire world, blackmail, etc. etc.), good AV often errs on the side of caution and provides more false positives.

@thepixelmonk Websites mining cryptocurrency when you visit is absolutely a thing. And it is absolutely possible for it to be injected into a site, too: https://blog.sucuri.net/2018/10/obfuscated-javascript-cryptominer.html https://threats.kaspersky.com/en/threat/Trojan.JS.Miner/

In my experience they are often only for unity as long as it doesn't encroach upon their lives i.e. "gay people can get married, but I think it's disgusting when I see two men kissing on my TV, keep it to yourselves". That's a very common conservative viewpoint which shows the issue. It's a superficial unity. Unity and inclusivity has to be an active process because it goes against humanity's natural tendency to exclude people, and most conservatives love excluding people. The communism that the world has seen has been deeply SD stage Blue. It wasn't really progressive or liberal. It was on the same level of authoritarian consciousness as religions were. You can be conservative and developed, but most conservatives are not developed. Right now the average conservative in younger generations end up following the alt-right, or Tate and other such influencers. In older generations, the average conservative votes for Trump or Brexit. Conservatives have a really hard time integrating stage green in particular.

Sorry, I don't think you understood my point. Maybe I didn't explain it well so I'll try again: Most marriages are crap. They start out good, but they deteriorate into a toxic mess that would be better for both parties if they divorced. In stage blue cultures this is very tough because the community oriented nature of the stage means that they can't really divorce out of fear of judgement from whatever stage blue institutions they belong to. Most stage blue institutions essentially disallow or highly discourage divorce. However orange/green culture cares far less, and allows divorce in these situations. A lot of the bureaucracy that makes divorce so messy and biased is actually coming from stage blue which assumes that women are always better at raising kids, and that a man must always support his housewife. I've only ever heard you say negative things about green. In fact, you seem to me to be a quite a negative person overall. And you also seem to me to be more egoic than most other people on the forum who likely all put themselves around green/orange with a smidge of yellow. To me it seems like you are framing yourself as yellow because you want to classify your own stance and opinions as above those of others, not because you are truly neutral and holistic in your analysis of situations. These are simply my impressions. Maybe I'm wrong and my puny tier 1 brain can't understand your gigabrain tier 2 thinking. I suspect that is what you will tell yourself reading this. But personally, I think you still have a lot of growth to do (as do almost all of us on this forum) before you can start calling yourself truly tier 2. I'm saying this hoping maybe it helps you to stop sounding less of an arrogant dickhead, because that's sort of the impression you are giving off to others right now and it doesn't benefit you at all.

Divorce rates rising is a good thing. The majority of marriages have always been awful. Stage green (and orange) culture just give people the freedom to leave their marriages without being completely shunned by their communities. Stage blue marriages can be absolutely horrifically bad, because both parties end up feeling trapped by cultural pressure to stay together.

If you go to great lengths to present your marriage as perfect to your traditionalist community, you’re going to lie in a survey about it too. Hell, most of those married couples probably took the survey together so they are hardly going to answer truthfully. Honestly same goes for all marriages. But the fact that traditional marriages value being seen as put together and stable to their community, even when they’re not, will have a particularly big influence here. Traditionalist culture brainwashes you to ignore faults in your marriage and shove them to the back of your mind “for the community”

This is not really a related statistic to the point I made. General life satisfaction and marriage satisfaction rates are different things. They may influence each other but drawing conclusions about martial happiness from a study about general life satisfaction is not sound.

A lot of the time because they stay together despise being categorically and unequivocally miserable, ‘because society wants them to’. I’m pretty sure domestic violence is also higher within traditionalist marriages too, lol. A relationship with a girl with a bad personality, bad character, or simply incompatible personality is not going to be a happy one in the long term. Men absolutely should and do care about the personality of a woman.