Coconut Monkey Cornerclub

[Zed Clampet]

<Jabba the Hut laugh>

Smoked helps a lot! But what kind of BBQ is this? The kind with mustard in it? That's really a whole different style - I'm not qualified to judge that kind.

I would be very surprised if they didn't use just traditional BBQ sauce. Pretty sure the people around here wouldn't love it so much if it were mustard based. I think that's pretty much just South Carolina. Buc-ees is headquartered in Texas.

 

[Zed Clampet]

I've never sued anyone, but I fully believe that companies that allow critical customer information to be hacked, like social security numbers, need to be sued into insolvency. There is no excuse for that. It is 100 percent preventable. Yet we just let these clowns carry on as if there were no problem.

 

[Zloth]

It is 100 percent preventable.

It most certainly is not. There are companies not doing as much as they could but, even if they spent the majority of their time on data security, there will always be cracks.

 

[Zed Clampet]

It most certainly is not. There are companies not doing as much as they could but, even if they spent the majority of their time on data security, there will always be cracks.

It is absolutely preventable. There are ways of securing social security numbers so that they can't be reached by people who get into the main system. For one thing, social security numbers shouldn't be used by companies as customer ID numbers and shouldn't be stored at all by most companies, and if they must be stored, they should be stored offline. Also, hackers almost always get into systems because people accidentally let them in. They never just hack their way in like it's shown in the movies.

 

[Zloth]

Also, hackers almost always get into systems because people accidentally let them in.

Or they figure out a password. Or they find a way to snoop and see what a legitimate user is seeing (which could be as simple as getting some binoculars and looking through a window - especially with people working from home now). In the end, the system HAS to show the SS# to the people/computers that need it. WHATEVER that system is, it can be fooled into showing it to somebody it shouldn't. Especially when you start talking about national actors and big crime syndicates that can invest millions into figuring out crazy hacks.

 

[BeardyHat]

Or they figure out a password. Or they find a way to snoop and see what a legitimate user is seeing (which could be as simple as getting some binoculars and looking through a window - especially with people working from home now). In the end, the system HAS to show the SS# to the people/computers that need it. WHATEVER that system is, it can be fooled into showing it to somebody it shouldn't. Especially when you start talking about national actors and big crime syndicates that can invest millions into figuring out crazy hacks.

Little bit of this, little bit of that.

Though in my experience, it generally is preventable, but C-Suites see IT and Data Security as a cost center and they'd rather not spend the money on it.

Honestly, they'd put the entirety of IT out on their ass if only they didn't need to figure out how to print or could remember their email password, speaking from experience.

 

[Zed Clampet]

Or they figure out a password. Or they find a way to snoop and see what a legitimate user is seeing (which could be as simple as getting some binoculars and looking through a window - especially with people working from home now). In the end, the system HAS to show the SS# to the people/computers that need it. WHATEVER that system is, it can be fooled into showing it to somebody it shouldn't. Especially when you start talking about national actors and big crime syndicates that can invest millions into figuring out crazy hacks.

Jiminey Crickets, I'm not talking about the CIA or the KGB. Of course there's no 100 percent method for hiding data from semi-criminal national agencies. I'm talking about protecting against the people who are actually out there doing real world hacks and putting data up for sale. They aren't government, and they aren't big crime syndicates (though some of them desperately want you to believe that they are). They are individuals and small groups. I'm not talking about Hollywood or Ubisoft depictions.

 

[Brian Boru]

they aren't big crime syndicates

After SSNs? Surely that's a piece of data of major appeal to Big Bad.

Or are you saying there's no Big Bad out there?

 

[Zed Clampet]

After SSNs? Surely that's a piece of data of major appeal to Big Bad.

Or are you saying there's no Big Bad out there?

There are definitely Big Bads out there, but how big and how bad is impossible to know. They aren't exactly public with their information. One that we know a little more about and which may be the biggest (if it still exists, we aren't exactly sure) is the Russian Business Network. This was supposedly shut down in 2007, but there are rumors about it continuing business in China (amongst other rumors).

There is speculation that the Russian mafia also works in identity theft.

But the tools that these guys use are the same tools used by Chinese hackers and others. Their methods involve mostly malware and phishing. They aren't these mythical crime syndicates operating on the same sort of level as M16. They aren't trying to access your offline systems. That would take a tremendous amount of work, would have a high probability of failure, and would open them up to all sorts of potential law enforcement involvement. Why do that when you can send out a few phishing emails?

 

[Zed Clampet]

Google Bard > CoPilot/Bing

Bard is now my go to AI for game information. It is much faster and far more correct.

In other ways, as far as keeping data straight, it's the same as CoPilot...completely unreliable. But for asking it questions about games, it's extremely good.

So long, Florence.

 

[Zloth]

Honestly, they'd put the entirety of IT out on their ass if only they didn't need to figure out how to print or could remember their email password, speaking from experience.

Not just 'could' - they do! IT always seems to be first to go when the going gets rough. (First to come back as soon as it shows any hint of recovering, too.)

 

[BeardyHat]

Not just 'could' - they do! IT always seems to be first to go when the going gets rough. (First to come back as soon as it shows any hint of recovering, too.)

I am well aware.

This happened quite awhile ago now, but I'm still very amused by the fact that after I quit my last company, my team quit shortly after I did. Boss called me and asked if I'd contract with them for a few months to get things sorted and they were forced to agree to my exorbitant fee I asked for.

Still a load of asspain working for my old boss, but the money I made made it all worth it in the end.

 

[Colif]

they better have been good games - https://www.giantbomb.com/coconut-monkey/3005-26208/

Seems coconut monkey was used as a distraction - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC_Gamer - though why I am choosing now to believe anything in Wikipedia is a good question

I thought it might have been in reference to the Thailand people using monkeys in bad ways, as a reference to the sites treatment of Moderators - https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/16/world/asia/hellofresh-thai-coconut-milk-monkeys.html

 

[Brian Boru]

why I am choosing now to believe anything in Wikipedia is a good question

Maybe you read about the study by Nature which found W and Britannica accuracy to be quite similar.

 

[Zed Clampet]

Maybe you read about the study by Nature which found W and Britannica accuracy to be quite similar.

I highly suspect that study was, itself, highly inaccurate. I could go to Wikipedia right now and find something wrong in very short order. Not so with Britannica. Heck, it even gets things wrong in order to just be politically correct.

 

[Colif]

Yes, I wouldn't trust a study by Nature... peer review is questionable now when people can get totally made up papers printed by publications
Academic Hoax

Wikipedia uses Twitter posts as references. Circular arguments happen where they will cite an article citing the wiki article.

I did a library course 10 years ago, last place I will use as a reference is them.

 

[BeardyHat]

they better have been good games - https://www.giantbomb.com/coconut-monkey/3005-26208/

Seems coconut monkey was used as a distraction - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC_Gamer - though why I am choosing now to believe anything in Wikipedia is a good question

I thought it might have been in reference to the Thailand people using monkeys in bad ways, as a reference to the sites treatment of Moderators - https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/16/world/asia/hellofresh-thai-coconut-milk-monkeys.html

Tangentially related:

Just the other day I was messing about with PCEm and created a Pentium 2 233Mhz, Voodoo Banshee system with 128Megs of RAM. Ended-up installing DOS 6.22, then Windows 95 and eventually Windows 98 and was trying to get the old PC Gamer discs working on there. I downloaded the first one I ever had (March 1996), but couldn't get it working because I couldn't find a solid driver for the Voodoo to work with Windows 98.

Really wanted to explore that interactive disc again (always thought they were neat), but after about an hour searching for a driver for a 25-year old operating system, to make an even older video card work, I realized I was wasting my life and shut it all down.

 

[Zloth]

Voodoo Banshee system with 128Megs of RAM. Ended-up installing DOS 6.22, then Windows 95 and eventually Windows 98 and was trying to get the old PC Gamer discs working on there.

Were you using extended or expanded memory?

I'm asking because I haven't had a reason to ask that in at least 30 years. 😉

 

[Brian Boru]

I highly suspect that study was, itself, highly inaccurate

…

Academic Hoax

There are errors anywhere that has a significant level of content, Britannica & Wiki included. Just like there are always bugs in any significant code. Nature and similar top-tier outlets are not immune from the vagaries of human nature [pun intended, as always], but there are no better filters currently in existence until AI advances some more.

As they say, 'data' is not the plural of 'anecdote' 😉

I wouldn't trust a study by Nature

What then can you trust?

Wikipedia uses Twitter posts as references

Well of course. Quoting from your future biography 'The Man Who Fell To Earth 2', Wiki will one day say "Colif said 'I wouldn't trust a study by Nature'"—are we to discount that just because the reference is to a forum? 🙃 The medium does not define the content—eg Zed has established that half the products on AliExpress are not scams [ref: PCG forums].

I did a library course 10 years ago, last place I will use as a reference is them

So if you won't even use a library as reference, what are you left with? 😛

But seriously—did your course go thru the probably millions of errors present in the content of any large library?

 

[Zed Clampet]

…


There are errors anywhere that has a significant level of content, Britannica & Wiki included. Just like there are always bugs in any significant code. Nature and similar top-tier outlets are not immune from the vagaries of human nature [pun intended, as always], but there are no better filters currently in existence until AI advances some more.

As they say, 'data' is not the plural of 'anecdote' 😉



What then can you trust?


Well of course. Quoting from your future biography 'The Man Who Fell To Earth 2', Wiki will one day say "Colif said 'I wouldn't trust a study by Nature'"—are we to discount that just because the reference is to a forum? 🙃 The medium does not define the content—eg Zed has established that half the products on AliExpress are not scams [ref: PCG forums].



So if you won't even use a library as reference, what are you left with? 😛

But seriously—did your course go thru the probably millions of errors present in the content of any large library?

I have a feeling, though I haven't checked, that the study was perhaps only concerned with scientific data, which on Wiki would mostly keep out the rabble that updates the rest of it.

 

[Brian Boru]

scientific data … keep out the rabble that updates the rest of it

Like say economists, engineers, teachers, historians, etc etc etc—that sort of rabble? 😀

I'm curious, what caused you to suspect the Nature study was "highly inaccurate"? Since it was, as you thought, concerned with science.

"The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopaedias"
—Nature.

 

[Zed Clampet]

Like say economists, engineers, teachers, historians, etc etc etc—that sort of rabble? 😀

I'm curious, what caused you to suspect the Nature study was "highly inaccurate"? Since it was, as you thought, concerned with science.

"The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopaedias"
—Nature.

First of all, you should know that, coming from a family of scientists, that Nature is frequently scoffed at due to their practices of publishing very low quality papers filled with low quality science that come from many highly questionable journals, many of which have used popularity matrices in order to justify the quality of the material. It is rather widely considered academic pollution. Except, of course, by journalists who love a great source of potential click-bait studies.

The Nature study on encyclopedias is a prime example of faulty science based on what you are telling me. It was inaccurate in the sense that it didn't measure the overall quality of both encyclopedias by focusing on topics that were outside the scope of a normal person's knowledge.

Your statement about "economists, engineers..." is pure nonsense. Wikipedia is more often updated by people who have nothing better to do and have no particular knowledge set. At least that was the case when I was scouring the behind the scenes discussions on various topics trying to get corrections put through a number of years ago. Wikipedia is updated most often by debates, just like the one we're having right now, by random people who happen to like to post on Wikipedia instead of a gaming forum.

If you don't see why science topics would be different, I don't know what to tell you. It is obvious to me that on subjects that people can't just prattle on about endlessly due to a lack of specific knowledge that this would create a vacuum that would naturally be filled by people who did have specific knowledge. The more esoteric the subject, the more accurate it should be. Meanwhile, the topic "Bill Clinton" is more likely to be an absolute cluster f**k on Wikipedia. Or it may not be. Topics there all have different moderators of highly variable quality. But that's only on subjects that have active moderators. Most don't.

 

[Brian Boru]

coming from a family of scientists, that Nature is frequently scoffed at due to their practices of publishing very low quality papers filled with low quality science

Oh interesting, I didn't realize there had been such a seismic shift in the scientific community—amazing it didn't make the science news anywhere I follow. What a shame tho to see a 150yo publication go down like that.

My info is ~15 years old. Please point me to where I can update it, since this chart is obviously completely wrong now:

You should also encourage a family member to help Washington University get their credibility back:

Eigenfactor: The Eigenfactor Metrics

52.6.43.8

Damn shame, is nothing sacred anymore?

 

[Zed Clampet]

Oh interesting, I didn't realize there had been such a seismic shift in the scientific community—amazing it didn't make the science news anywhere I follow. What a shame tho to see a 150yo publication go down like that.

My info is ~15 years old. Please point me to where I can update it, since this chart is obviously completely wrong now:

You should also encourage a family member to help Washington University get their credibility back:

Eigenfactor: The Eigenfactor Metrics

52.6.43.8

Damn shame, is nothing sacred anymore?

I'm more than a little disappointed in your attitude. At no point was I sarcastic or crtitical toward you, so I think you could have made your point without all the obnoxiousness.

Nature is not a bad publication, but you are acting like it is beyond reproach. But you think most studies are. It's no sweat to me if you want to see Nature as untouchable. The reputation of Nature has gone up and down through the years. They've gone through periods where they have had to retract multiple studies due to failures on their side. In fairness, they have always tried to adapt to their failures and implement more stringent policies for publication, but they also went through several significant periods where the pressure to publish obviously influenced them.

The point I was trying to make is that a study is not accurate simply because it was published in Nature. Even Nature's own editors will tell you that. Many Nature articles spawn a great deal of debate. But what is more, the study you quoted for Wikipedia only covered science topics. As far as I can tell, they never made any statement regarding Wikipedia as a whole. As skeptical as I am sometimes reguarding Nature, I don't believe they would have published that study if it tried to say what you implied that it said.

 

[Brian Boru]

you could have made your point without

Yes, I could have done it differently.

At no point was I sarcastic or crtitical toward you

😀

Anyway, over and done, let's move on 🙂