Best he could do was about 600 reqs/second and couldn't sustain it very long.
This is what those graphs normally look like.
currently.png
> is there any account on here that posts
Fedi's less of a broadcast medium and more of a communications channel. Your best bet is to find people that like to talk about that and talk to them.
> ethical hacking
The "white"/"black" hat thing is a psyop; there are people that make the computer do something weird and there are people that arrest those people for it. You know, like, you look at Woz, he was good friends with Captain Crunch and Kevin Mitnick: antics are antics. What's unethical? What's that mean? Think you'll get the same answer from two people? Stuxnet was designed to break the centrifuges and stop Iran from refining uranium: ethical? What if it targeted the NYSE instead?
Lotta weird hackers around fedi. niggy @ poast, natalie @ nya.social, and eriner (ent @ noauthority) come to mind if you are talking about network security stuff. Then there are people doing weird shit that wanders near security, I post about that stuff, graf, mint, a lot of people. (I'd rather talk about that stuff than most other stuff.) There's a search box.
But every time someone says "ethical hacking", I think about this kind of person:
hackingbutlegal_is_biden_infosec.png
+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄
@p @sicp @ins0mniak @nigvids @rebelai @Hoss
> antics are antics. What's unethical?
i'd say "destructive" isn't hacker spirit.
using a cereal box whistle to get free calls isn't destructive. the phone system works just fine either way.
using insane amounts of racketeered money to buy up 0 days for blowing up centrifuges is destructive in means and end.
@p @sicp @ins0mniak @nigvids @rebelai @Hoss
> would be
the same kind of weapons of mass destruction found in iraq 
> You think you will be able to get consensus on which is more destructive?
imo one doesn't need consensus on it, either something is destructive or it isn't. a destructive action might be legitimate for self defense, but that requires someone to be at least threatening someone else. not just the vague idea that someone might do something bad at some point in the future.
@p @sicp @ins0mniak @nigvids @rebelai @Hoss
i didn't intend to argue, i just don't think blowing things up is very good or effectively solves problems long term.
> The point was "ethical hacking" is a stupid term, meaningless. It is a line drawn by people that describe their jobs with terms like "tracking down bad guys".
yes
(very armchair) OT regarding physics alone:
afaik if you require enrichment depends on which reactor is used for generating power, some need enriched uranium some don't. those that don't have other issues why you wouldn't want to use them. iirc the chernobyl design was like it was, with all it's faults, to burn unenriched uranium. iirc what is critical is the grade of enrichment, 20% or something is fine for power generation. weapons need something 90%. this is hard to check for others, of course.
the wrist hole really sounds shit, hope it gets well soon already!
> i just don't think blowing things up is very good or effectively solves problems long term.
"Kill guys and break stuff." That's war. Don't shoot the messenger: I'm just describing what I see.
>
> if you require enrichment depends on which reactor is used for generating power
Oil-rich country, which can't even export its oil because of embargoes, which it has because it has been a rogue terrorist state since the 1970s, which status it maintains by sending RPGs and rifles to every hillbilly militia in the Middle East, suddenly decides it needs to hire rocket engineers from North Korea and power itself with a rock it has to import because the Ayatollah...what, cares about air pollution? I mean, your feelings on war aside, they're building nukes. There is no reason to poke them otherwise: they produce more energy than they can use, so frustrating their nuclear program doesn't stop their power plants. They have also said they are building a nuke. Obama signed an agreement with them: they agreed not to build a nuclear bomb for at least ten years, and we agreed not to bother them about their uranium enrichment for as long. Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt all hated that deal because they viewed it as permission to build nukes. Now, because if you are building a nuke and no one wants you to have it, you tell everyone that you are not building a nuke, and because the press hasn't done its job in decades, people are saying Iran doesn't even want a nuke. This is ridiculous.
Khaddafi gave up his nukes, we promised no regime change. Subsequently, under a hail of American cruise missiles, Khaddafi was killed on live television by being sodomized with rebar by a lynch mob. This was the biggest foreign policy disaster of the 21st century: it guaranteed that no other rogue state will ever give up their nukes. North Korea will never give up their nukes.
Especially, like, look at Turkey and Syria right now, look at Russia. Iran, Turkey, and Syria have all been trying to establish regional hegemony. These are AK-47 countries, not M-16 countries, and Russia's strategy has been to prop up whichever one is most likely to annoy the US.
So, whether or not it is *possible* that they might not be making nukes, there is no reason to assume that they have changed their minds.
> the wrist hole really sounds shit, hope it gets well soon already!
Can type normally as of yesterday, just hurts. So I try to avoid saying anything that I don't think needs said.
> same kind of weapons of mass destruction found in iraq
Oh, fuck's sake, do not tell me that there is a reason to build uranium centrifuges and not nuclear weapons.
> imo one doesn't need consensus on it,
The thing in context: "What's unethical? What's that mean? Think you'll get the same answer from two people? Stuxnet was designed to break the centrifuges and stop Iran from refining uranium: ethical? What if it targeted the NYSE instead?"
This is a :checkem::moon: problem. There's a hole in my wrist, typing hurts, I don't wanna explain myself. I have no interest in arguing whether or not it is ethical to frustrate Iran's nuclear program. The point was "ethical hacking" is a stupid term, meaningless. It is a line drawn by people that describe their jobs with terms like "tracking down bad guys". Don't look at my finger, I'm pointing at the moon.