4 ms·

Ha. I did the exact same thing on Windows to inject DLLs into Chrome once. EDIT: Geez. I sure wish I knew what's so objectionable about what I said.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
I didn't vote either way until you edited your post to add the meta comment. I don't like posters discussing moderation of their posts (I find that discussion about themselves to be vain and distracting from the topic), and I feel gross and off topic myself talking about it even now. The chrome thing sounds cool.
- throwaway892238 3y ago
  The strange taboos of ingroups
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    To be fair, the guidelines[0] request of us: > Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. Which, yeah. [0] – https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - WhackyIdeas 3y ago
      Maybe one day HN will realise that giving the ability to downvote is pretty pointless and needlessly open to abuse. That negative ability just promotes negativity itself and a bloody pia when I am reading a greyed out message because I am too stubborn to go into the settings and change defaults - so I just steam on thinking HN are using a relic of an ideology.
      - throwaway892238 3y ago
        It's an ingroup reinforcement method. If you're part of a cult, and you're not allowed to eject someone from the cult, you can at least ignore them or walk away from them when they talk to you, if you don't agree with what they say/do. It's a way for the members of the cult to reinforce the ingroup's behaviors without having overt power over the group. For other people watching this behavior, it reinforces the need to align themselves with the larger group, to avoid the same fate. The first rule of fight club is you don't talk about fight club.
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        You're just describing the behavior of every society ever. I'm not sure where some folks got the idea that they could say whatever they wanted in whatever community they wanted and not expect any reactions, but that's clearly an inhuman expectation. I'm guessing that attitude is a byproduct of internet commenting. I guess you could call society an "ingroup" or a "cult" like you're doing. It technically fits the definition. It also gives you a convenient victim complex to wave about whenever you feel like people aren't agreeing with you enough. But let's be honest: not every social pariah is a Galileo.
        fluoridation 3y ago
        >I'm not sure where some folks got the idea that they could say whatever they wanted in whatever community they wanted and not expect any reactions Usually, historically, if you said something someone didn't like you could expect the person to either confront you directly, or to silently change their opinion of you and possibly change their behavior, perhaps to your detriment. Even before the Internet existed, there was something else someone might have done, which is to send you an anonymous note reading "fuck you". No argument, no way to reply, nothing but a cheap gratuitous offense that serves no purpose other than upset the person who receives it. I argue that downvoting a comment you don't like is equivalent to that.
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
- fluoridation 3y ago
  I didn't comment about the voting itself, I asked what was wrong with my comment. There's a difference between "oh, I'm getting down-voted, this sucks" and "what's wrong with what I said?" The former is whining, while the latter invites discussion. If telling someone else what you think about their comment counts as "meta" discussion and is therefore boring then that kind of kills the purpose of a discussion forum.
Retr0id 3y ago
I didn't vote, but to answer your question, you couldn't possibly have done the "exact same thing" as a linux-specific userland exec technique and have it work as a DLL injection technique on Windows. I'm sure it could've been conceptually similar, but not identical, and maybe those differences would be interesting to discuss.
- fluoridation 3y ago
  "Exact same thing" as in re-implemented a basic OS feature in user mode to bypass an intercepted feature. Obviously it can't be literally exactly the same thing, because that wouldn't be implementing something, but rather using existing source code.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago

I didn't vote either way until you edited your post to add the meta comment. I don't like posters discussing moderation of their posts (I find that discussion about themselves to be vain and distracting from the topic), and I feel gross and off topic myself talking about it even now. The chrome thing sounds cool.

throwaway892238 3y ago
The strange taboos of ingroups
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  To be fair, the guidelines[0] request of us: > Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. Which, yeah. [0] – https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - WhackyIdeas 3y ago
    Maybe one day HN will realise that giving the ability to downvote is pretty pointless and needlessly open to abuse. That negative ability just promotes negativity itself and a bloody pia when I am reading a greyed out message because I am too stubborn to go into the settings and change defaults - so I just steam on thinking HN are using a relic of an ideology.
    - throwaway892238 3y ago
      It's an ingroup reinforcement method. If you're part of a cult, and you're not allowed to eject someone from the cult, you can at least ignore them or walk away from them when they talk to you, if you don't agree with what they say/do. It's a way for the members of the cult to reinforce the ingroup's behaviors without having overt power over the group. For other people watching this behavior, it reinforces the need to align themselves with the larger group, to avoid the same fate. The first rule of fight club is you don't talk about fight club.
      - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        You're just describing the behavior of every society ever. I'm not sure where some folks got the idea that they could say whatever they wanted in whatever community they wanted and not expect any reactions, but that's clearly an inhuman expectation. I'm guessing that attitude is a byproduct of internet commenting. I guess you could call society an "ingroup" or a "cult" like you're doing. It technically fits the definition. It also gives you a convenient victim complex to wave about whenever you feel like people aren't agreeing with you enough. But let's be honest: not every social pariah is a Galileo.
        fluoridation 3y ago
        >I'm not sure where some folks got the idea that they could say whatever they wanted in whatever community they wanted and not expect any reactions Usually, historically, if you said something someone didn't like you could expect the person to either confront you directly, or to silently change their opinion of you and possibly change their behavior, perhaps to your detriment. Even before the Internet existed, there was something else someone might have done, which is to send you an anonymous note reading "fuck you". No argument, no way to reply, nothing but a cheap gratuitous offense that serves no purpose other than upset the person who receives it. I argue that downvoting a comment you don't like is equivalent to that.
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
fluoridation 3y ago
I didn't comment about the voting itself, I asked what was wrong with my comment. There's a difference between "oh, I'm getting down-voted, this sucks" and "what's wrong with what I said?" The former is whining, while the latter invites discussion. If telling someone else what you think about their comment counts as "meta" discussion and is therefore boring then that kind of kills the purpose of a discussion forum.

Retr0id 3y ago

I didn't vote, but to answer your question, you couldn't possibly have done the "exact same thing" as a linux-specific userland exec technique and have it work as a DLL injection technique on Windows. I'm sure it could've been conceptually similar, but not identical, and maybe those differences would be interesting to discuss.

fluoridation 3y ago
"Exact same thing" as in re-implemented a basic OS feature in user mode to bypass an intercepted feature. Obviously it can't be literally exactly the same thing, because that wouldn't be implementing something, but rather using existing source code.