What’s your point? Cool story, still raped two women. Don’t put violent sex offenders with the demographic they victimized. Should lesbian sex offenders be incarcerated with other women? Probably not, right?

You’ve just made a great argument for why gendered prisons are a ridiculous notion in the first place, and why results-based decision making is more important than broad, impersonal classification-based decision making.

And that’s before we even talk about how the overwhelming majority of prisons in general are inhumane and ineffective at reducing crime.

Yup. Pretty much.

Let me turn that around on you:

Should a male-presenting, gay sex offender go to a male prison or female prison? What is the purpose of gendered prisons? What problem is it trying to solve? And why are we using gender for that instead of “likely victims of the incarcerated individual”?

Gendered prisons are a ridiculous notion that only exist because our prison system itself is completely fucked up, profit-driven, and inhumane. It produces worse outcomes than almost any other form of legal consequences except in extreme cases.

Yes. Or treat trans women as women. Because that’s what they are. Name a situation where you think this would be problematic and I’ll show you why it’s patently absurd.

Fun fact: the infamous “cripple fight” from South Park is a shot-for-shot remake of the fight scene from They Live

While this is good advice, best practice is to always get your yubikey in pairs and keep them synchronized. One should remain in your home, in a safe place (as you described) while the other should remain on your person or outside the home (e.g. in a safe deposit box)

It’s more of a pain in the ass for sure, but handles the theft scenario more effectively

I’m not talking about appropriate security posture for a given individual though. I’m speaking specifically to their claim that it has provided “no benefit”, and that is a claim they cannot even prove. Whether the benefit is negligible, because the account(s) are unimportant to them, or massive, because they are dealing with financial institutions, is completely irrelevant to the veracity of the statement.

I find this line of argument especially ridiculous considering that they are apparently using MFA enough for it to be worth commenting about the nuisance. So either they are using it a lot, in many places, and definitely can’t back up a “no benefit” claim, or they’re using it very little and/or only for unimportant accounts, at which point their claim is saber rattling at best, and misleading to others at worst.

😍🤩 Contextually relevant Depeche Mode 🤩😍

I was wondering wtf you were talking about until I remembered I have the entire tankiesphere blocked. Oh the blissful, golden silence 😁

Their analogy is from the perspective of an authorized user complaining about inconvenience, completely ignoring the things I was addressing (their statement that 2fa provides no benefit)

1…2…3…4…5

I just think it’s funny how this is literally my job and you think you know better xD

Your metaphor is garbage and makes no sense because you are providing the perspective of an authorized user while I’m speaking about attackers.

You think that because your house hasn’t been broken into that the locks are pointless. But it’s the locks that keep your house from being broken into

I literally have this conversation with dumbass leadership on a regular basis; how the absence of security compromise isn’t a reason to cut security, but rather proof that the security is working

But go off, dude. You just look like a fool

Ok. Why don’t you try explaining how digital security works to the security professional some more. I’m sure you’ll convince me real soon 😜

This is a misunderstanding. You can’t possibly know if there’s been a benefit, because you wouldn’t know unless your account was compromised. The mere presence of 2fa on an account will stop credential stuffing attacks dead in their tracks.

It’s like saying “this lock on my door is pointless because nobody has broken into my house”.

Absolutely not. Nope. Nuh uh. Not worth the trauma. I’ve got enough horror from just Nina.

A minor annoyance now to avoid a major headache later. Worth the trade

Did I fall asleep?

If you think even 50% of her campaign decision making reflected her personal politics you are mistaken about how the DNC operates.

As I said, on paper she was a fine candidate to start a campaign with. She could have easily converted a win if the party as a whole hadn’t totally rejected anything progressive long before she took to the campaign trail.

People forget that after you get elected you still have to collaborate with Congress. Presidential candidates are absolutely beholden to the will of the DNC, and their party platform. They will not hesitate to torpedo a presidency as retaliation for failing to toe the company line

Only slightly more effective than posting on the internet! Maybe.

That was 4 years before she, you know, was vice president for 4 years. That tends to provide valuable experience.

I’m not gonna pretend I liked her but she wasn’t a bad candidate to begin a campaign with. But then she ran to the right in an insane way