🇮🇹 🇪🇪 🖥

  • 0 Posts
  • 63 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: March 19th, 2024

help-circle
  • I actually disagree that a book is “problematic” because it touches, presents, includes etc. any topic that morally we disagree with. Not every book has to be a manifesto or a depiction for a moral and just society, which is why I find most of the arguments against HP to be weak (some points were listed in a sibling comment thread).

    subjecting any popular series to close reading with an eye for affront is likely to show up its flaws

    I am quite sure this is true for any book (especially fiction), in fact. Which is why I think it’s an activity that makes sense only to justify the pre-existing opinion about the book, rather than having a value in itself.

    if you have the chance to pick it up second-hand I’d encourage you to see if you can finish it.

    To be clear, I know that Dan Brown stuff is garbage. I just have seen people who I think never read a book in the previous 10 years read that one (in translation though, so who knows…). So the book must at least be interesting and intriguing to keep the attention of people who are not used to read. For me this means not fitting in the “terrible writing” category, but maybe we mean different things by that.


  • The DaVinci code sold 80 millions copies. The first HP book alone sold 120 millions, and the whole series 600 millions, being the most sold series of books.

    Not only they are one order of magnitude apart, but I think they sold for different reasons.

    I haven’t read Dan Brown’s stuff, but I also doubt it’s terribly written by the way. Books that capture the interest of a population more and more unused to read can be shallow, banal, inconsistent, whatever, but not terribly written. Casual readers can hardly finish a terribly written book. In any case, HP books are children’s books. Children or teenagers are not literary critics, it’s not about reading “great literature”, however you define that.

    I also can’t help to notice the coincidence that all the HP critiques started appearing in the last years, when the author went bananas. A series this popular, which ended in 2007, and suddenly 15 years later people notice that it’s “terribly written”? This smells more to me of a damnatio memoriae than genuine critique.


  • Honestly, I read the books translated + I could not and still cannot relate with the issues that I often see raised against the book (like the way diversity is represented). Especially when I was a kid, those issues were so not in my mind that I would never ever flag as issues.

    To make an example: for me as a kid, slavery was something that mostly had to do with the roman empire. The whole debacle about house elves etc. is completely disconnected from real societal probelsm, recent history etc. I have always rooted for the elves because that’s what I was pushed to do emotionally, but without really ever reflecting on slavery as a whole. I am picking this example because it’s one of the most used ones to critique the book.

    In general I also believe that authors can build worlds that do not represent their views, I find a lot of the critique I have read a stretch and I am especially suspicious that most of these critiques started appearing recently. I believe people started with the thesis (she is an asshole) and then backtracked the analysis trying to find anything at all in the books that could support the conclusion (rather than viceversa).

    Either way, all of this is relatively irrelevant. People can like or dislike books - especially fiction - freely. For me the book is mostly associated with a vibe of being young, thinking about those stories, relating with the characters etc., not with the actual books content. So it’s more about thinking back of childhood/past than appreciating the literary value.


  • I found it very fun, interesting and captivating when I read those books (that is, when I was maybe 13-16?). If it was “terribly written” it wouldn’t have made the success it did, and also the target audience is generally not made of literary critics.

    So I don’t think there is much to judge, especially since many people’s good opinion on the story is based on their lived experience with it, from when they were younger etc. And you can’t erase that from your life because the author turned out to be an asshole 15 years later.




  • I presume you mean running Plex in host namespace. I don’t do that as I run the synology package, but I can totally see the issue you mean.

    Running in host namespace is bad, not terrible, especially because my NAS in on a separate VLAN, so besides being able to reach other NAS local services, cannot do do much. Much much much less risk than exposing the service on the internet (which I also don’t).

    Also, this all is not a problem for me, I don’t use remote streaming at all, hence why I am also experimenting with jellyfin. If I were though, I would have only 2 options: expose jellyfin on the internet, maybe with some hacky IP whitelist, or expect my mom to understand VPNs for her TV.

    (which doesn’t harden security as much as you think)

    Would be nice to elaborate this. I think it reduces a lot of risk, compared to exposing the service publicly. Any vulnerability of the software can’t be directly exploited because the Plex server is not reachable, you need an intermediate point of compromise. Maybe Plex infra can be exploited, but that’s a massively different type of attack compared to the opportunities and no-cost “run shodab to check exposed Plex instances” attack.



  • Well, as an application it has a huge attack surface, it’s also able to download stuff from internet (e.g., subs) and many people run it on NAS. I run jellyfin in docker, I didn’t do a security assessment yet, but for sure it needs volume mounts, not sure about what capabilities it runs with (surely NET_BIND, and I think DAC_READ_SEARCH to avoid file ownership issues with downloaders?). Either way, I would never expose a service like that on the internet.


  • Not to be “achtuallying” bit VPN is not a way to remote stream, it’s a way to bring remote clients in the local network.

    Likewise exposing services on the internet…not really going to happen esepcially for people - like me - that run plex/jellyfin on their NAS.

    I don’t have a horse in this race, i don’t use remote streaming, I only ever streamed from my nas to my 2 TVs, and I am experimenting with jellyfin. But for those who do need remote streaming, jellyfin is going to be problematic.





  • Ironically that poster is an Israel supporter. By their own logic every Israeli should be victim of default “suspicion” and be treated like an IDF war criminal, since everyone has the “potential” to be one.

    Actually, this argument would be even more compelling since Israel does have elections and you can emigrate/renounce to your citizenship, both not possible in case of manhood.

    It’s bizarre that someone could come up with such a poor argument that ultimately boils down to: “people should be accountable for the actions of other people in the same demographic”, without realising there are tons of way you can divide people in demographics.



  • Precisely. It’s completely different from doing that in your group of friends, where confrontation is a way to establish common values, and in an internet cesspool where anyway I am going to be moderated out.

    Just yesterday I was reading a great article about how social medias compare to TV when it comes to feeling part of a group. “Calling out” people in such places wouldn’t be anything else that virtue signaling (to yourself) to reaffirm your own identity (I stand up to sexism), and at the same time allow those people to reaffirm themselves (I get confronted because I am speaking truth).

    Basically it would be at most a performance.



  • because at least all men share the potential to act out problematic gender roles

    Everyone (literally) has the potential to act out problematic gender roles, women included.

    protect other men from female criticism because “they are different”

    This sentence is legit incoherent. If a criticism doesn’t apply to someone, protecting against said criticism is quite literally preventing discrimination.

    If men want to get rid of the collective suspicions

    Or maybe we can criticize unfair collective suspicion in the same way summary judgments based on other categories are crticizised. I really can’t see how this argument does not lead to racism, sexism, etc. Being a man is not being part of a club, you don’t decide to join, you don’t subscribe to any value, you don’t have a steering committee that decides how “manhood” is by vote. Why tf anybody should be responsible to change a group that they are part of simply for biological reasons?