friendlymessage

Mā schā' Allāh

They talked about five years ago not about the reelection campaign

Definitely, but I'm still not happy with how progressiveness is handled in Discovery, which comes back to the bad writing. I mean, I like that they have a non-binary character. But that they made a semi-big deal out of it makes no sense in-universe imo. Usually, Star Trek would just have a character that's non-binary and everyone would just go with it, showing how in an ideal world coming-out is either not necessary or not more than a simple correction.

It's also a common white name, isn't it?

I think it was more "how about we create some actually likable, interesting, and multidimensional characters making actually sensible decisions?" I think SNW is better here than even all the old shows. I have the feeling that stuff like Worf being such an inexplicably bad dad or Sisco completely out of character committing genocide in one episode would not happen in SNW.

Enjoying the graphics, except for their stupid turbolift animation that makes no fucking sense

Discovery is just shitty writing and bad characters, the wokeness is the least of its problems

A field that definitely has a problem with replication is Computer Human Interaction. There are a lot of user studies in that field and you basically never see a study done twice. The setup of the studies usually doesn't even allow it to be repeated as it hinges on some proprietary software written for that very study that is not released to the public.

I see the same issues also in computer science especially when looking into recent trends such as AI or blockchain/NFTs before that. There are definitely areas that are more rigorous than others but the replication crisis is a problem in many many scientific fields. If your results are not completely outlandish and don't go against the vibe, no one will ever bother to check your results.

If you're at home and then go to the game, how anonymized is your movement data really?

Yeah, I agree that any bug report on such a technical level should contain scripts or similar to reproduce the finding but that's not the same as a full blown proof of concept exploit and I think to require an exploit sets the bar too high. A vulnerability is a vulnerability, no matter whether there's an exploit or not. If you commission somebody to do a pentest you usually don't get exploits either.

The researchers need to provide proofs of concept. Actual functional exploits.

Talking in general, not for this very issue: In my experience, providing a proof of concept is often a lot harder than simply fixing the issue. For an open source project it's probably more helpful if the reporter provides a fix or at least a recommendation on how to fix it