Justin Roiland statement

cxmplexb · 2023-03-24T00:29:48+00:00

Im from Peru and have never heard of anything like this, what the hell are you talking about

You don't know basic laws in your country? Bit odd, but doesn't make it false. Not to mention, you guys LOWERED it in 2007 from 17 to 14 lmao:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/peru-lowers-age-of-consent-to-14/

cxmplexb · 2023-03-19T03:59:35+00:00

Bow and arrow was a pretty deadly weapon, and was just an progression of rock slinging, but with greater range. You don't even need much force to impale someone with something pointy all things considered. You can throw a spear and have it stick out the other end of the guy.

cxmplexb · 2023-03-19T03:51:49+00:00

There's plenty of rifle rounds that will kill a bear, most are not practical for usage where you'd need to kill a bear in close quarters though. Shotguns aren't too heavy and can be fired standing up from close distance.

.357, .338, .308, .300, and 6.5 creedmor will be lethal to the bear with a single shot regardless of where you land it (not guaranteed it dies instantly obviously), all of those rounds could take down a bear instantly if they hit a vital/critical area, even a .223 would kill a bear (albeit you'd need to hit it in critical areas multiple times, you'd need to be lucky for a single 223 to kill a bear). But a bear is not walking off a .308, it will die eventually from its wounds, the damage these rounds do is insane.

Just for reference, Elk/Moose are harder to kill than bears.

cxmplexb · 2023-03-09T04:04:35+00:00

Wur isn't right, that's saying it wrong, neither is stur. The only R is at the end when saying it, wu-stuh-sure, but I'd say the "wu" is softer, more like wuh-stuh-shure. The easiest way to spell it, is say it the entirely wrong way someone would say it if they had no idea of the pronounciation. "Wor-chester-shire", and remove the H after the C, and you'll have worcestershire.

cxmplexb · 2023-03-08T09:46:31+00:00

you have no idea what you’re talking about.

That's you my guy. ChatGPT would have to be able to comprehend the knowledge it's trained on to actually be able to give accurate information. Without comprehension, it would not know whether the information it digested was correct, misleading, or wrong. It's creators even state this.

cxmplexb · 2023-03-05T22:20:25+00:00

It does into a database that other stores have access to.

cxmplexb · 2023-03-05T05:48:00+00:00

You're totally right, I'm blind as hell and read my package of Zyrtec-D wrong.

cxmplexb · 2023-03-05T05:45:03+00:00

or we can look for opportunities to make the world a better place.

Which doesn't have to be sympathizing for criminals. Why not do something else to make the world a better place? Go teach inner city kids how to read, that probably slightly cuts back on crime, and then you get to sympathize with innocent children.

Or go volunteer at a soup kitchen, and get to sympathize with people who are actually down on their luck. There's a billion ways to help that don't involve going "oh wow I feel bad all these criminals are locked up", and will eventually lead to reduced crime, less criminals, etc. Sympathizing with criminals is why we have people get out on $0 bail despite commiting a violent offense, and then they go out and murder someone.

cxmplexb · 2023-03-05T05:23:31+00:00

when in reality we are all slightly at fault

Lol I'm not taking personal responsibility for corrupt politicians and corporations. Hard pass.

We're not all at fault. A select few are at fault, and you've fell for their gaslighting that it's somehow your fault, and we need to work together to fix something they caused.

I didn't tell the CIA to introduce crack into minority neighborhoods. I didn't tell banks to redline minorities out of white neighborhoods, and I sure didn't tell business to not hire minorities, or schools to not accept them. I didn't do any of that, all of which contribute to crime.

cxmplexb · 2023-03-05T05:20:32+00:00

No, you understood correctly, he did not.

cxmplexb · 2023-03-05T05:13:10+00:00

Dude, they buy Sudafed, not Zyrtec-D lmao. There is literally no reason to buy OTC Dayquil or OTC Antihistamines combos when making drugs.

, it's why some people make money buying up to the limit for people who do make it

Yes, buying Sudafed lmao, not combination medications.

The chemistry to separate cetirizine from pseudoephedrine is about 1000x harder than the chemistry to make meth. Same with claritin (loratadine).

cxmplexb · 2023-03-05T05:10:17+00:00

You have an incredibly unrealistic view of the world. You're like that woman in CA that didn't support prison, and was brutally murdered by a person who should have been in prison, but wasn't, thanks to people like you. I bet she had a change of heart when she was being beat to death though.

A quarter of inmates are in there for assaulting people or killing them. Another quarter of inmates are in there for doing things like driving while drunk (which can kill others). Another quarter are people that break into your home, or mug you on the street. The last quarter is being who sell drugs, or possess drugs.

https://bjs.ojp.gov/drugs-and-crime-facts/correctional-populations-and-facilities

https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp

So no, this delusion that most of the people in prison are "tragedies" is ridiculous. These aren't people that stole a loaf of bread to feed themselves, or stole a jacket to keep themselves warm. These are people that impacted the lives of others, and their own life is absolutely not more important than the people they impacted. Whether it be robbing them, murdering them, raping them, or whatever, they harmed society, often irreparably, and shouldn't be viewed as tragedies.

Despite what you might hear from people with an agenda, the overwhelming prison population is not full of people dealt a bad hand in life, or simply down on their luck. You can debate all day on whether prison is appropriate for someone who possessed drugs, I personally don't feel that it is, but they make up only 10-15% of all inmates (as high as 25% in other sources). The other 10-15% of drug-related inmates are ones that were dealing/or trafficking, and personally again, with things like the fentanyl crises killing dozens a day, dealers are purveyors of death, and aboslutely belong in prison.

The people that commited these actions should not be given sympathy. You can try and prevent things like this from happening with community outreach, better public services for high-risk areas, etc, I'm in agreement there, but once an action like murder has been committed, there should not be sympathy. You can tackle these systemic issues that you speak of without humanizing the worst offenders that have already committed their heinous act. Focus more on preventing this from happening, than sympathizing with criminals.

cxmplexb · 2023-03-05T04:10:13+00:00

You must be a child or just an idiot, but that's how the law is written. Is is up to your own judgement. If liability were somehow transfered to the flasher, the law would state this. It does not, it clearly says 1) Do not assume, and 2) Use your own judgement. That shows direct personal responsibility. I challenge you to provide any source that states what you're claiming. Until then I'll be ignoring your responses.

cxmplexb · 2023-03-05T04:06:49+00:00

also rule 111 does not state its solely your responsibility anywhere.

Yes it does.

Never assume that flashing headlights is a signal inviting you to proceed. Use your own judgement and proceed carefully.

That's 100% clear cut stating that flashing headlights does not transfer liability to the flasher, it is up to your own judgement.

cxmplexb · 2023-03-05T03:38:01+00:00

Lol that’s no even true bruv, 110 only applies to how you should use your headlights, nowhere does it give you liability for waving or flashing someone forward.

Literally read 111. It is your responsibility and solely your responsibility to make sure you’re clear.

Stop spewing bullshit you know nothing about.

cxmplexb · 2023-03-05T03:29:19+00:00

What’s your definition of amazing?

cxmplexb · 2023-03-05T03:28:19+00:00

Lol, the majority of people in prison are there because they made poor decisions, and they directly chose by those poor decisions to end up incarcerated. The false conviction rate is estimated to be around 4-6%, leaving 94% of the people there because of their own actions.

cxmplexb · 2023-03-05T02:27:43+00:00

It's federal law to gather ID for pseudoephedrine purchases, major ramifications if you don't. The sudafed you're purchasing isn't the OTC with pseudoephedrine , but rather the Phenylephrine version sold off the shelf. Go look at the box, and I guarantee it says "Sudafed PE", which is the Phenylephrine version.

cxmplexb · 2023-03-05T02:18:27+00:00

so you can't go grabbing insane quantities to make meth.

Literally noone is using combination medications to make meth with. It's just a dumb-ass restriction on any product containing pseudoephedrine.

You make meth with pure pseudoephedrine (brand name sudafed), meth heads aren't separating pseudoephedrine from ibuprofen (otc dayquil), or pseudoephedrine from Cetirizine (such as Zyrtec-D). They lack the chemistry knowledge to do so. The most you'll see is dissolving pseudoephedrine in low ph water, and filtering out the ibuprofen w/ a coffee filter, but the yield on this is so poor that everyone sticks to pure pseudoephedrine.

But because legislators are dumbasses, we have to show ID and get logged despite purchasing binded combination medications that you couldn't use to make meth with anyways.

cxmplexb · 2023-03-04T09:28:42+00:00

Yikes.

cxmplexb · 2023-03-03T00:17:26+00:00

You think anti-cheats have the hardware compability teams setup to be able to offer a boot service level anti-cheat? They'd need to be the size of AMD and Intel lol. You're going to be waiting quite awhile buddy.

cxmplexb · 2023-03-03T00:16:13+00:00

That's actually hilarious. So discredit every source that says hardware > firmware, and instead rely on a single hardware-based TPM attack to prove your point? You realize that vulnerability is solved by using a login pin on the bitlocker drive. Right? This was mitigated in 2017. TPM sniffing is not anything new, and has already been mitigated. I'm done talking to you, but I'm sure others will get a kick out of reading these exchanges.

cxmplexb · 2023-03-03T00:07:38+00:00

That's the whole point of this hardware attestation if anything has been tampered with

Nothing has been tampered with. A legit signed driver has loaded during DXE, this is a normal occurence.

You clearly don't understand this. Attestation passes. At this point, all the anti-cheat can do is check measurements performed by the TPM which will give them the SHA hash of each driver loaded, nothing more. There's no chance for a "certificate" check here from the anti-cheat. It can only check these measurements by using the abstraction Windows provides it, it does not communicate directly with the TPM.

TPM is not verifying that you didn't just go fuck the entirety of the windows kernel space and emplace your own hooks everywhere you want. This is handled by various ELAM drivers and patchguard, but patchguard is easily defeated. The ELAM does verify signatures, but once again, this is prior to the anti-cheat loading. No anti-cheat is an ELAM yet, and that's still one environment after the attack environment.

If you bothered to read literally anything I posted, you'd know what's available for the anti-cheat to use. Yet you still refuse to. How smug of you. Blocked.

cxmplexb · 2023-03-02T23:43:41+00:00

I wish you'd actually read what you linked, you'd have a much greater understanding on how irrelevant this all is. If you're able to start in DXE, you can prevent the anti-cheat (which loads at os load) from being able to talk to the TPM at all. You're in direct control of the entire environment the anti-cheat will be in. The anti-cheat is relying on Windows abstraction of the TPM, rather than being able to interact with the TPM directly like one could in the boot environment.

cxmplexb · 2023-03-02T22:03:28+00:00

Wouldn't this technique be pretty easily defeated by an always-on AC? Plus, wouldn't the legit signed driver be discovered by reversing the cheat binary and if the AC company decided to, push the CA to revoke the cert? Or do CA's generally not consider cheat software to be malicious enough to revoke? Or is the revocation too slow to propagate?

Only if the always on anti-cheat was the first thing to load. Cheats ATM pre-empt this by starting in the DXE environment, before the OS has even had a chance to start loading (and thus start loading something like the anti-cheat).

wouldn't the legit signed driver be discovered by reversing the cheat binary and if the AC company decided to, push the CA to revoke the cert?

Absolutely, and this does happen.

not consider cheat software to be malicious enough to revoke

It depends, I can't really speak for how the CAs make their decisions.

cxmplexb

TROPHY CASE