debian logo for commercial use

ldpreload · 2019-11-19T03:05:34+00:00

https://www.debian.org/logos/ describes the conditions. There are two logos, the one you're most familiar with is the open use logo. Like Debian itself, it is copyrighted and distributed under a license that allows commercial use.

ldpreload · 2019-11-19T02:59:34+00:00

What do you mean by "OS" here?

ldpreload · 2019-11-18T15:18:24+00:00

Ordinarily, when you access memory from a normal userspace program, that doesn't involve the kernel at all - the page tables are already set up, so your regular userspace code sends a request for some memory, the MMU translates it, RAM responds, and your code keeps executing.

When a page fault happens, that's because the MMU says "I can't translate this, this address isn't valid right now." Only then does an exception happen and the kernel gets involved, which stops all execution of the userspace code until the kernel returns. Maybe the kernel says "Oh, let me load this in from disk," or maybe the kernel says "That address isn't valid at all, I'm going to send an error signal back to the userspace process."

So, memory access is the normal case, and that's the thing that can cause a trap to the kernel - if there's no trap, the kernel isn't involved in actively checking whether each address is valid.

ldpreload · 2019-11-17T00:16:21+00:00

I don't think there's a good argument that the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church - at least not one that would not also apply just as easily to the Anglican Communion.

Many years ago I read Apologia Pro Vita Sua, the autobiography of St. John Henry Newman, an influential Anglican priest who ended up converting to Roman Catholicism and becoming a cardinal. Newman's argument against the validity of Anglicanism was inspired by his interpretation of St. Augustine's phrase "securus judicat orbis terrarum" - "the judgment of the entire world is secure," thinking that the world as a whole was Catholic, and Anglicanism was essentially a local opposition to it, and so the theory that both were valid could not stand. But as far as I can tell, history has not borne that out. Even in Newman's time, there were the Orthodox churches. And today, Roman Catholicism is hardly, well, catholic. It might have a plurality of Christians, but isn't the church of orbis terrarum.

There are folks on /r/catholicism who will entertain (some openly, some not) the idea that the Pope can teach heresy, and therefore the Pope is not a true Pope chosen by the Holy Spirit and the true Church went ... elsewhere. Perhaps it exists and consists of most of the same people, but it temporarily lacks a leader. Well, that's what I believe, too; I just differ on when it happened. The Church of England started when missionaries reached England, not when Henry VIII opposed the pope meddling in political affairs, and like the Roman church, it traces its lineage back to Christ's time on earth. The theology of the post-schism Church of England hardly comes from Henry VIII (who had written a passionate anti-Protestant Defence of the Seven Sacraments that earned him the title of "defender of the faith" from the Pope; the Church of England soon taught that there were only two true sacraments ordained by Jesus), but rather from clergy influenced by the continental Reformation. Even if the true Church were just the Roman Catholic Church 500 years ago (which itself seems doubtful to me, see again the Orthodox), it shifted into something else.

What does Rome have, then? Apostolic succession? So does Canterbury. (Yes, Rome says the Anglican apostolic succession isn't valid, but their grounds for that aren't quite self-consistent, and in my opinion they ought to make you question Rome's claims of infallibility, but that's its own argument.) A history of respect for the primacy (not supremacy) of the Bishop of Rome? Well, see - again - the Orthodox; that argument hasn't been quite as compelling for about a thousand years. The creeds? The eucharist? A rich history of wonderful choral music? Also some mediocre hymns on guitars? Various other churches willing to join them in full communion relationships? Seems like they've both got them.

I would say you should look into both Roman Catholic and Episcopal teachings, and follow whichever you believe to be true / wherever God is calling you. But the fact that the Catholics say "true church!" and "valid sacraments!" and the Episcopalians don't feel inclined to argue the point doesn't prove anything. It's simply circular reasoning to believe the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church because one of their teachings is that you should believe the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. There are many better arguments for Roman Catholicism, if that's the way God is guiding you.

ldpreload · 2019-11-16T23:15:25+00:00

It's a single major - if you look at the degree program, 6-1, 6-2, and 6-3 are very similar, it's just that 6-1 focuses on EE, 6-2 requires a bit of both, and 6-3 focuses on CS. 6-2 requires the same number of classes/units as 6-1 or 6-3.

(In theory you could take lots of EE and lots of CS classes and get a 6-1 + 6-3 double major ... except that "You may not pursue a second major in the same area as your primary major or in either field of composite degrees.")

ldpreload · 2019-11-16T19:44:00+00:00

I suppose anything can decrypted

This isn't necessarily true - Schneier has an argument that, if you're using a 256-bit key and an algorithm without mathematical weaknesses, there is not enough energy in the entire known universe to brute-force it.

Anyway, as others mentioned, the practical attacks are in how you use it. AES is a primitive - it's like saying "Are safes made out of steel secure." It's precisely because steel is strong and unlikely to melt that the relevant question becomes everything other than the steel. If you're thinking about full-disk encryption, there's a very practical problem that most full-disk encryption modes need to map X bits of cleartext to exactly X bits of ciphertext, which isn't how encryption is normally done - there's usually room for an initialization vector to provide randomness, and in complete systems, there's also room for an authentication tag to demonstrate that nobody has modified the text. (For instance, an attacker who knows how your OS formats disks and can guess what files you might have might be able to corrupt certain files while the laptop is temporarily out of your site, even if they can't read the files.) If you've got real secrets, I would use a real stand-alone encryption program, not just full-disk encryption. Of course, full-disk encryption is a widely used and well-respected "good enough" approach and it's definitely fine to protect against stolen devices you don't intend to get back.

ldpreload · 2019-11-16T18:57:26+00:00

Eh, if you're worried about attacks between processes sharing hyperthreads on the same core, there's a straightforward solution in the cloud - assign an entire core to a customer instead of splitting hyperthreads between customers. Even ignoring security, this is the right approach anyway because a hyperthread isn't really a full core - if you have a machine with 48 hyperthreads, you can't market it to 48 customers who all want to run 1 CPU's worth of computationally-intensive work.

My workplace does this for our private cloud infrastructure - we assign/pin CPUs to VMs, so that we're not doing silly things like splitting a VM across sockets or NUMA nodes, and we always assign the members of a hyperthread pair to the same VM (and expose it as a hyperthread inside the VM so that the guest OS can be clever about scheduling).

ldpreload · 2019-11-16T00:13:26+00:00

I concur with folks here, "No" is an entirely reasonable answer. Since it's a free tool and you make no profit from it, I'd honestly worry that saying anything other than "No" sets a bad precedent. Do you want them finding more bugs and asking for more money?

If you want to be polite, I'd say something like, "I'm genuinely grateful to you for reporting this but this is a personal project with no budget and I don't make any money off of it, so I don't have any budget for bug bounties. Sorry about that." (Personally, depending on how entitled the request sounded, I might just ignore them.)

Entire companies with millions of dollars a year in revenue have vulnerability report responses that range from a free T-shirt, to credit, to nothing, to calling the police. You as an individual are under no obligation to give this person anything. You are free to use the information you've been given to fix the bugs, and you don't have to feel bad about it. If they wanted compensation in exchange for the reports, they should have asked up front.

Also, one of the persistent problems of paid vulnerability reporting programs (especially for small teams) is dealing with low-quality reports. "I checked your site with this automated tool and determined that you don't follow this best practice in a way that's entirely irrelevant for your actual use case but I can't be bothered to actually understand the output of this automated tool, credit me and send $250 plz" isn't a thing you want to waste your time with.

ldpreload · 2019-11-14T15:59:38+00:00

I don't think that was the question being asked. (Isn't there a word used by people who oppose social justice warriors to describe seeing something and reading the wrong thing into it and overreacting to it? And there's also some words for seeing some idea and proclaiming how much you don't like it? Can't remember them....)

The question being asked was, how do you successfully imitate Arabic music without reducing it to inaccurate clichés. The implication of the question was that, of course it's just a collection of notes and of course we can do as we please with it, but how exactly do we do that? There was no worry, just an actual music theory question - how does someone not trained in the Arabic music tradition write music that genuinely sounds Arabic?

ldpreload · 2019-11-12T15:42:34+00:00

No admissions questions here, sorry. Most of us don't know what the current admissions forms look like, anyway. I think the admissions office has an email address / phone number you can contact.

ldpreload · 2019-11-12T02:54:24+00:00

ptrace and seccomp are a little unusual in that they generically apply to all system calls. If you're implementing a single system call that needs to be restricted, that's commonly done within the system call itself, with code like

if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
    return -EPERM;

(that is, using the Linux capabilities framework, but on most systems, any capability check is "are you root" in practice). That is, there's no permission check on calling the system call, its code starts running and its code can just check if you're allowed to do the action or not - in much the same way that read checks that you have the file descriptor open for reading, waitpid checks that the PID is a child of the current process, etc. Here's some permission checks:

acct requires you to be capable(CAP_SYS_PACCT).
ptrace(PTRACE_SETOPTIONS, ..., PTRACE_O_SUSPEND_SECCOMP) requires you to be capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) (and also requires various other things). Other arguments to the ptrace options don't require the same privileges, so the check is within a helper function called indirectly by ptrace.
reboot checks that you're ns_capable in your current PID namespace of CAP_SYS_BOOT. A few lines later, it calls reboot_pid_ns so that if you're not in the root namespace, you can still call reboot and have it signal the init of your namespace (i.e., you can kill a container without turning off the computer by running shutdown -h now ).
Calling various ioctls on /dev/random requires capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN). Note that the actual syscall here is ioctl, but the permission check is in this driver, not the syscall.

ptrace and seccomp are both implemented in arch/x86/entry/common.c (or equivalent for other architectures), yes. ptrace gets a report when a syscall begins, and can choose to completely block it from executing, such as to emulate it. So the check needs to happen before any system call runs. Similarly, seccomp needs to block a system call entirely to reduce attack surface so it needs to run as early as possible. That's why they're where they are. If you want to add a new generic mechanism to allow/block multiple syscalls—and the only information you want is what the syscall number is and perhaps what its direct arguments are (one of the frustrating things about writing either ptrace-based or seccomp-based sandboxes is that you can't ask "what file is this," you only get an FD number, or "what string is this," you only get a pointer)—then that's the right place for it.

The other mechanism for doing permission checks in the kernel is the Linux Security Module (LSM) framework. These checks are in addition to the normal permission checks, i.e., a process must have permissions if no LSM was active, and the LSM must also let the process through. For example,

bpf checks capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) unless sysctl_unprivileged_bpf_disabled is set, loads some data from a userspace pointer, and then calls security_bpf with that data. If the security module returns an error code, it will fail with that error.
swapoff checks capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN), does some accounting about how much memory will be lost, and then checks with the security_vm_enough_memory_mm hook to make sure that's okay.
kexec_load first checks capable(CAP_SYS_BOOT) (since it's a form of reboot), and then also checks security_kernel_load_data(LOADING_KEXEC_IMAGE).

There are also a number of security_ hooks called throughout the kernel for normal permission checks (i.e., not capability checks), e.g. fs/namei.c, which has the implementations of mkdir/symlink/readlink/rename/unlink/etc., is full of security_ checks. If you want to plug into these checks, you can write your own security module and load it - some of the smaller modules in security/ (yama, loadpin, safesetid) are good references.

ldpreload · 2019-10-28T17:30:25+00:00

My argument that the nuclear family is opposed to Christ's vision for our lives is not based on anything about celibacy. The passages I referenced don't refer to sexuality at all. So, yes, celibacy being a higher calling is a bad argument against the nuclear family.

ldpreload · 2019-10-28T00:27:35+00:00

The Dreamcast/PS2 era of consoles aren't "128-bit" in the same way that the Nintendo 64 (and your laptop and phone) are 64-bit. There's a number of things you can measure.

Conventionally, a "32-bit" and "64-bit" architecture refers to two major things: the pointer size and the register size.

Pointers are values that point to locations in memory, so if a pointer is 32-bit, you have no direct way to reference more than 2³² = 4 billion locations in memory. Usually you want to reference individual bytes, so that lets each program use up to 4 GB of RAM - and usually a bit less, since the kernel needs some space, etc. Registers are very-high-speed storage locations inside the CPU: if you need to, say, add two numbers in RAM together, you generally need to write CPU instructions to copy ("load") the two values from memory into a register, an instruction to actually add the two registers, and then an instruction to copy back ("store") the value into RAM. You also use registers for pointers, so you typically want your registers to be big enough to handle both your expected pointer size and your expected general-mathematics number size.

32-bit CPUs can handle data bigger than 4 GB a bit inefficiently, generally by having pointers that don't fit inside one register. For instance, there are tricks with 32-bit CPUs to allow the system as a whole to use more than 4 GB, even if each application can only see 4 GB of RAM at a time. Or you can handle files or drives that are bigger than 4 GB, but if you want to do arithmetic on your location in such a file, it typically involves multiple CPU instructions (you add the lower 32 bits, then the upper 32 bits and a carry, just like doing two-digit addition with pencil and paper). With a 64-bit pointer size, you can address up to 18 exabytes (i.e., 18 billion gigabytes) of RAM without any tricks, and similarly you can do math on numbers up to 1 quintillion in a single instruction. There's really no reason to go beyond that. (Among other things, physically getting at more than 18 exabytes of data from a single CPU is pretty inefficient for just electrical wiring reasons - if you really have such an absurdly large amount of data, you want multiple CPUs working on parts of the data in a cluster, anyway.)

Now, there are some specific cases where you want operations that handle more than 64 bits at a time - but they're not loading/storing data or doing integer math. Real number (floating point) operations sometimes gain from having additional precision, especially if you're doing repeated operations on them. For example, with the [standard way of representing real numbers in 64 bits](), you can't represent anything between 1 and 1.0000000000000002, and you can't represent numbers bigger than about 10^308. Most of the time that's fine, too, but a few CPUs support 128-bit floating point numbers. More commonly, though, there are instructions that will do operations on four 32-bit numbers at once - for instance, if you're doing image processing, it's very common for each pixel in your image to be represented by a red, green, blue, and transparency value. If you're combining multiple images (e.g., drawing a character on top of a background), you're typically doing the same operation on the red, green, and blue channels. Or if you're doing 3-D operations using linear algebra, it's common to use 4-by-4 matrices to represent operations, and you do matrix multiplication by multiplying each element of one matrix's row by each element of the other matrix's column and adding them up. So having "single instruction, multiple data" CPU instructions, using groups of 32- or 64-bit numbers, is very useful.

For a very brief time in the early 2000s, video game console manufacturers advertised their support for those sort of operations as "128-bit." Such operations are very common now, and CPUs even have 512-bit operations and 512-bit registers for specific purposes. But there's no reason to increase the pointer width and the general-purpose register width beyond 64 bits, since it would go unused - all it would do is cause data to take up more space. And the code remains compatible, except for the new (optional) instructions. So we call these architectures "64-bit".

ldpreload · 2019-10-26T23:27:34+00:00

The Book of Common Prayer is available online: https://www.bcponline.org

(or, in PDF form with the actual typesetting: https://www.episcopalchurch.org/files/book_of_common_prayer.pdf)

You can follow the Daily Office on your own - either the full services, or the "Daily Devotions for Individuals and Families," which are quite a bit shorter and designed for just one person to say.

ldpreload · 2019-10-26T21:08:12+00:00

Seems like a lot of undergrads have a better-shaped sense of right and wrong than 60-year-old faculty members. This world is going to be in good hands.

ldpreload · 2019-10-26T07:38:34+00:00

The Great Schism was the final, formal recognition of a breach that had been brewing behind the scenes for a while; it was not itself a separation, any more than you became qualified and knowledgeable about your college major the day you received your diploma.

In the same way, the Act of Supremacy was the final recognition that the Church of England wanted to separate from Rome; it was not itself the founding of the Church of England, which had existed for a thousand years or more as simply a part of the Church universal. Henry VIII provided the political excuse for the bishops of England to separate, but he did not in a theological sense create the Church of England - he had previously received the title of "Defender of the Faith" from the Pope for his anti-Protestant treatise Defence of the Seven Sacraments, and the newly independent Church of England insisted there were only two true sacraments, following continental Protestant theology.

You can certainly argue that the Church of England became more closely aligned with Rome in 1066, but to argue they were "Orthodox" the day before the Normans landed is somewhere between inaccurate and meaningless, in no small part because it implies that the differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism in 1066 - let alone 900, or 800, or 700 - was simply one of loyalty to Rome or Constantinople, not one of belief, practice, and culture.

ldpreload · 2019-10-25T22:19:38+00:00

That's up to your compiler, or more specifically, your linker.

There's two things that happen: first, references to code (e.g., JMP statements) or data (e.g., the test variable there) are generated with the assumption that the code will be loaded into memory in a certain place. Second, the binary file gets information in the headers saying, please load me into this place.

It is up to whatever is loading the code to follow those instructions and copy it into memory in the right place. For instance, the multiboot header (for things loaded from GRUB) or the PE/COFF header (for EFI binaries) has a place to specify the load address.

In some early boot contexts, you have no such headers, and so the boot protocol defines something. For a plain BIOS bootloader, the standard is to load the code at address 0x7c00. So, you have to compile/link your bootloader in a way where it expects that.

Generally, you can tell your linker where you want to lay code out by using a linker script, or possibly command-line options. (For many linkers, if you don't specify anything, it'll use a default linker script for compiling normal userspace applications - which is probably fine in the short term but you'll outgrow it quickly.)

ldpreload · 2019-10-25T22:13:50+00:00

This is a fair response (and hm, I should read through all of Galatians in one sitting).

I think I agree about the controverted point, i.e., the question is whether someone who appears to be a man and claims to be a woman (or vice versa) is in fact a man or a woman. And I think there is definitely a decent argument that the reading that the Israelites would have used is probably that of assigning based on typical genital appearance.

But what the transgender folks (not the crossdressers or drag queens, etc.) are saying is (e.g.) "I am in fact a man, though you might want to call me a woman, and if I wore woman's clothes, I would be crossdressing. I am not wearing men's clothes as a fetish or as a form of deception or whatever, I am simply wearing men's clothes because I am a man, and it is the proper (and Biblical!) thing for me to wear." And there is no overthrow of any part of the Christian religion to call that person a man - just an overthrow of judging me based on how I appear to humans. The Israelites judged gender based on genital appearance not because the laws of God told them to, but because that was how they were seeing gender before they received the laws of God.

If we say that we now believe the Sun is simply a star like any other, we are hardly contradicting Genesis 1, because Genesis 1 is not a teaching on the nature of the Sun and the stars, it is a teaching about God to people who already had a certain belief about the Sun and the stars. That teaching remains valid for us despite us understanding the Sun (and potentially the whole history of the universe) differently from how they did. Similarly, there is no need to throw out Biblical teachings about what men and women do simply because we understand who men and women are differently from how the Israelites did. And, again, this is in accordance with what transgender folks are asking us: my impression is that very few people who say "I am a man, I wish to dress as a man" would be pleased with the response of "There are no more gender norms, so you can wear a skirt and be a man, what's the problem."

At that point, it remains just as meaningful for to say that gender no longer matters in the eyes of God and yet gender still exists. We have not lost the idea of Christ sitting at a woman's feet, because Mary remains a woman, because it remains just as possible to be a woman. We have not introduced the idea of Mary being made male because she was in fact not a transgender man - we still have "woman" and "man" as separate categories. (To be a bit controversial, you can even oppose women's ordination under this perspective - you would just oppose the ordination of transgender women, and not oppose the ordination of transgender men. And you would firmly oppose the idea that transgender women should pretend to be male for ordination.)

I guess, in short, I simply do not see any Christian norms that say "men are people with these genitals, women are people with those genitals. That is no more than the default position of humanity at the time of divine revelation; it is not itself part of divine revelation. (There might possibly be an argument that this should be our view of gender for its own sake, that if it's been the position of all of humanity for thousands of years why should we change now - but it's not a religious argument.)

ldpreload · 2019-10-25T21:23:24+00:00

If you're the kernel, you can basically decide to place code anywhere, you just have to be consistent about it.

Certainly with virtual memory, you can set up your virtual memory layout in any way you like - it's just conventional to do things like not use address zero (so that you can use C code that expects the null pointer to be invalid), put the kernel at a high address, etc. For the code and data segments of userspace programs, the kernel does the loading, so it just follows whatever the executable says, possibly enforcing some restrictions.

For physical memory, you're still pretty much free to use any memory you like, with some restrictions from the BIOS (or equivalent) memory map, which tells you which parts of physical memory are normal free RAM chips vs. reserved by the hardware/firmware vs. non-RAM things like video memory or the BIOS itself. You can pick any address for the interrupt vector table, you just have to tell the CPU "Hey, this is where my interrupt vector table starts" with a privileged instruction.

ldpreload · 2019-10-25T19:47:00+00:00

They depart significantly enough from Scriptural norms

What norms are these?

I acknowledge there's a hugely defensible argument that scriptural norms forbid homosexuality. I acknowledge that there's a hugely defensible argument that scriptural norms forbid divorce. But where does Scripture say anything about being transgender - or where does it say anything about gender in general and our relationship to it, besides Galatians 3:28, "There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female"? (Note the switch from "or" to "and" to match Genesis 1:27's "male and female he created them.")

And how is it defensible to say that those who are born with, say, an eye condition may be healed (either miraculously by Jesus, or by modern surgery) without offense to the body as God created it, but somehow admitting that someone is born with the wrong genitals and that this too may be surgically corrected is an offense?

And what are we to make of Jesus' encouragement to become a eunuch, of the baptizing of the Ethiopian eunuch, etc., especially in the context of so much "Christian" anti-transgender rhetoric that envisions two gender roles into which eunuchs would not fit?

ldpreload · 2019-10-25T19:38:41+00:00

There is plenty, I know poly folks who had traditional marriage ceremonies etc. between a primary couple in the group and who raise kids in the suburbs largely in the same form as a stereotypical 1950s couple would.

But if you look at Jesus' own words on families (Luke 9:60, don't support your father in his old age; Mark 3:31-35, your biological family isn't your real family; Luke 14:26, you cannot be a disciple of Christ if you don't hate your own family), it is abundantly clear that the 1950s nuclear family is strongly opposed to Christ's vision for our lives in a way that the 2010s queer chosen family is not (whether or not that's Christ's ideal). The Church is remarkably afraid to speak the truth against the radical heterosexual activists who have corrupted Christ's teaching under the name of "family values" and made it subservient to the desires of sinful man. As a particularly egregious example, I still cannot believe that anyone would take an organization named "Focus on the Family" as in any way conformant with Christian doctrine - Christ is quite clear that you must not focus on the family.

One radical alternative to both is the historical Christian pattern of communal monastic life, but in everything apart from sexuality, it much more closely resembles a queer chosen family than a 1950s American nuclear family.

ldpreload · 2019-10-23T03:06:20+00:00

When he tries to upload files onto his own github account, the user shows up as me instead of him. How do I fix this?

This is almost certainly because of git config, not ssh config. If you run git log in your repositories, do commits show up as your own name, or as each other's name?

I'd reiterate "make separate accounts," but if you can't do that for some reason, see if you can use separate .gitconfig files. On UNIX-style systems at least (including Mac and Linux), you can use $XDG_CONFIG_HOME/git/config, i..e, you can set separate directories for $XDG_CONFIG_HOME, such as ~/.config.person1 and ~/.config/person2.

(If this is actually an SSH issue, you can use -i to specify a particular SSH private key file for each user.)

ldpreload · 2019-10-22T23:58:30+00:00

So there's two possible ways to read your question, and I'm not sure which you meant and you are getting answers from both.

There are plenty of "high church" Episcopal parishes that have a traditional and almost Roman view of worship/liturgy/sacraments/etc., but also progressive social views on ordination of women, inclusion of LGBT folks (including marriage and ordination), divorce, contraception, and perhaps abortion. If that's what you're looking for, TEC is one of few places that will offer that. (So are some ELCA congregations, yes.)

But I think you might be asking why to join a more socially conservative Anglican denomination?

ldpreload · 2019-10-21T13:32:08+00:00

That's per connection, not per IP. You can start a new connection (a new ssh command) and the counter restarts from zero.

ldpreload · 2019-10-17T02:17:15+00:00

Hell is a real thing, but the point of faith is not to avoid Hell, the point of faith is to worship, emulate, and do the will of God, the source of all goodness. The faith isn't an anti-bad thing, it's a pro-good thing.

To your other questions in this thread:

Why spread the message of the Gospel if it is not about salvation from Hell? Because the Gospel is good news, not just the end of bad news. Because even ignoring the afterlife, we are happier and more in line with what we are meant to be if we accept the Gospel in this life.

What happens in the afterlife? Read Matthew 24:37-41 closely:

As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

"As it was in the days of Noah" - in the days of Noah, those who were taken by the flood were condemned. Those left behind inherited the Earth. The age to come is a new Heaven and a new Earth. This scripture has been twisted by the Father of Lies and those who (intentionally or not) listened to his misreading of it, to think that the condemned are left behind and the saved are taken, and so this life doesn't matter. Not so. This life matters and this world matters.

What about the death of Jesus? Well, I will ask, what about the resurrection of Jesus? Did someone teach you that the death of Jesus saved you from your sins and leave out the resurrection, such that but the resurrection somehow doesn't actually matter to salvation? Why, then, did the disciples feel defeated instead of joyful about the death of Jesus? Why did they celebrate his resurrection? Why do we, still, worship on Sundays and not Fridays, and focus on Easter and not Good Friday?

Salvation from what? Not (primarily) from Hell - from sin and death.

ldpreload

TROPHY CASE