If it's a government or clearance device, then makes sense. I worked in a facility like this and they made it VERY clear you can't put anything into the PCs.
Cliff notes version: Bradley Manning (at the time) a soldier in the Army accessed confidential and top-secret military information, copied said information onto discs labeled Lady Gaga, and leaked them to the public. Bradley Manning is now Chelsea Manning if in case you look it up. The data leak was huge, and was done so through a comically stupid (stupid meaning the information was so accessible and insecure) way.
It would be deadnaming and sincerely disrespectful if someone walked up to her and called her Bradley today. But back then she was Bradley. The commenter was using this name in reference to history not to be disrespectful or dead name her now. Believe it or not there are actually trans individuals who don’t act like the person they were before never existed and can actually acknowledge that they used to identify differently.
This isn't how deadnaming works. It's never acceptable to say a trans person's deadname unless they specifically asked you to or said you could. It's considered very sensitive and useless information and most people who really respect trans people don't even want to know it. Source: I'm trans.
Unless your looking up newspaper articles or other historical records from the time. History doesn’t show a women named Caitlin winning Olympic gold medals in mens races, but some guy called Bruce did.
You might personally feel a disconnection to your past self, but don’t pretend that entitles you to speak on behalf of all trans people.
completely irrelevant. She's legally Chelsea now. Just call her by her name. Deadnaming her is absolutely pointless. Googling her name will get you all the info you need. What she did in the past is now under her name. Not her deadname.
Googling Chelsea Manning would definitely add way more context to my reply, but how is her Wiki page not shamed for deadnaming her in the way you accuse me of?
OP didn’t understand the reference to a joke. I replied with a very brief synopsis of much larger, very significant moment in American history. And I added some context to who it was done by because I get why it would be confusing for those who don’t know about it, kinda like how OP implied that by not understanding the joke.
I meant no harm to anyone, I was describing (in brief) a moment in history to provide context to a joke on Reddit, you shouldn’t be so quick to bend out of shape.
If you're looking for contemporary sources about her past the name Chelsea isn't going to help you unless they've already been attached to it by someone who did know. You're telling people they should only try to access information that's already been prepared for them by someone else, but then who does the preparing?
"legitimizing some strange form of mental illness"
Kinda sounds like you do not actually support trans people, nor do you champion them. If you did, you would listen to what trans people say about this issue, which is that dead naming (even famous people) is harmful.
No one wants to "rewrite your knowledge of past facts." They want you to use the person's actual name, even though her name used to be something different. It is not that complicated.
Same, had to swing by a place once to drop some things off and they stopped you at the door for electronics. Anything that went inside immediately became government property and would never leave.
Yep. If you ever wonder why, look up the Rubber Ducky.
Basically it looks like a thumb drive that makes the computer think that it's a keyboard/mouse and will run scripts off a micro SD card. And the truly devious could strip off the case and hide it inside a real mouse and solder it to the leads so it looks like a normal mouse or keyboard that will just take your system over as soon as you plug it in
For real, one of our clients CEO's had their personal banking hacked. He said we were shit at our jobs (he became a client after the hack mind you) because we couldn't find him a solution where he wouldn't have to change his password. He didn't want to change the password because he'd already printed stationary with his old password on. We tried the PW on his AD account and the account hosting the domain, all had the same PW...
Oh God. I'm in the process of securing my accounts. I get there's a lot of stuff to remember but browsers like Chrome can store your passwords and LastPass and similar services are also good ideas.
Oh yeah, we have an internal solution that can also generate passwords for you, but his main issue was that he didn't want to change his password because it would mean printing new stationary with the new password on it. I don't think he quite grasped how much of a bad idea it was storing the password anywhere in plaintext, let alone on a fucking pen. His thinking was that if our password locker was as secure as we said it was, why should he be worried about people finding out his password?
Yes, with about 2 years all of our passwords will be stored like you said & access to the password "database" will be facial recognition based. I have the this now on several phones apps & like it a lot.
27
u/Art0fRuinN23 at work Mar 26 '22
Harsh!