neatchee

I said I would show why it's patently absurd. And I did. Absurdity comes in many forms, including systemic issues that require dramatic change

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