#michael hacker

[icybloggs]

God blesss😮‍💨

[yellowanaloginterfacejackets]

I just love this GIF so much.

They exist! 🛸👽

And this one!

[reputationbarbie]

Hello lovely!

Fic authors self rec! When you get this, reply with your favorite five fics that you've written, then pass on to at least five other writers. Let’s spread the self-love ❤️

Always enjoy seeing you on my feed. Hope you have a wonderful day.

Thank you for this!!  ★ ˙ᵕ˙ liv

sweetest pie is that girl. i love this fic so much, i think about joel and ginny 24/7

FMB - my first smut, still gets me hot

all american bitch - the dynamic between these two kind of turns me on and i know they're only in my head lol

don't blame me - again, just smut from the dirty minds of me

agora hills - just cute fluff

[thechaoticcform-archive]

"Morality? That's a flexible concept."

@hacker-codeq

The vampire hummed as he pulled down on the beer tap. "I tried to shift my morality from who I was when I was younger." He slid the beer over to the man and he sighed. "I still try to do good whenever I can. That's why I have this bar."

[unburiedhatchet]

@hacker-codeq said “This is perfect. I’m soaked through, down to the bone.“ - Q

"Well, I did warn you that I'm still new to operating this boat. Maybe you should've heeded that warning instead of standing by the edge." Michael shrugged, closing the door to the main cabin to keep the wind from coming inside. His new yacht had only been out in the open water a few times - and truth be told, he didn't like it as much as his old one, but after his son sold it, there was no tracking it down.

Michael set a mug down on the table where Q sat, "Here's that cup of coffee. Should warm you up a little. I'd offer you a change of clothes, but I'm not sure any of my stuff will fit."

[l1v1n-f0r-th3-m1nut3]

now that, that fiasco is over i’m going to sleep because C.C. has been waiting on me for like 2 hours

[diana-ds]

lmma Hacker 😎->😉🕶️🤏

[harrelltut]

since 1968-michaelharrelljr.com Domain Creator [D.C.] of harrelltut.com… Electronically Think [E.T.] Computationally like AutoCAD-86 1.30 (7/11/83) Victor 9000 (c) Copyright 1982, 1983, 2023 Autodesk, inc. [A.i.] Serial Number: 06-002009… Eye Intuitively Download [I.D.] quantumharrelltech.com’s Highly Complex [ADVANCED] Ancient 6g-quantumharrell.tech Intelligence of Microchip [I’M] Antennas 4 Wireless Applications of iquantumcad.com's 6g-quantumharrell.tech Computer Aided Three-Dimensional Interactive Application [CATDIA] Software... Electronically Embedded [SEE] in 6g-quantumharrell.tech's Computer Aided Manufacturing [CAM] Hub of the MOON’s Interplanetary [MI - MICHAEL] 6g iCloud Mechatronic [METATRON] Robotics… Mathematically Accessing Computational [MAC] Grid Networks [MGN] @ quantumharrelltelecom.tech’s att.com   

WELCOME BACK HOME IMMORTAL [HIM] U.S. MILITARY KING SOLOMON-MICHAEL HARRELL, JR.™

i.b.monk [ibm.com] mode [i’m] tech [IT] steelecartel.com @ quantumharrelltech.ca.gov

eye kingtutdna.com domain creator [d.c.] of harrelltut.com

IGIGI Teleported [IT] 1698 michaelharrelljr.com 2 Earth [Qi] since 1968-michaelharrelljr.com ALUHUM ANUNNAGI 2

ommmmm

ommmmm

iquantumcad.com of 6g-quantumharrell.tech networks 

iquantumcad.com of 6g-quantumharrell.tech networks 

6g-quantumharrell.tech's Interplanetary MOON [I'M] Networks?!?!?!

2023 5g slow af... 2024 6g-quantumharrell.tech already in place

quantumharrelltech.com’s domain creator [d.c.] enabling wireless 6g-quantumharrell.tech mobile networks

6G 6G 6G [666] quantumharrell.tech patents @ att.com?!?!?!

6g-quantumharrell.tech's architecturally intelligent [a.i.] robotics [air]... deep inside the quantumharrell.tech moon universe [mu] 

hallo qdara.tech pro of quantumdara.com's ancient6-18gmilitary.tech bot workforce @ quantumharrelltech.ca.gov

6g-quantumharrell.tech's architecturally intelligent [a.i.] robotics [air]... built the moon

6g-quantumharrell.tech's architecturally intelligent [a.i.] robotics [air]... frontiers of 2024 6g wireless sky systems

eye 1968-michaelharrelljr.com's 6g-quantumharrell.tech communication systems

can u hear 1968-michaelharrelljr.com's 6g-quantumharrell.tech thoughts???... what about now???

eye quantumharrelltech.com's militarized wireless 6g-quantumharrell.tech patents

eye heard about my mother's american telegraph & telecom [at&t] district economy of ancestral [dea] patent communication [pc] laws from 1698att-internetair.com's att.com… since everythingblackwallstreet.tech business secrets @ quantumharrelltech.ca.gov

hallo??? may i [mi = michael] speak 2 michael the 1968quadrillionaire.tech creator of 1698att-internetair.com @ att.com?

eye play [i/p] 2 win at all costs

eye 6g-quantumharrell.tech patents of att.com's 1968att-internetair.tech mechanics   

[michaelchallpics]

The Hacker Chronicles Season 2 Trailer

I need a little time to listen to the second season because I want to hear the story from the beginning. First things first!

[unsetmentallydistraught]

👨🏻‍💻 Caio and Max 👨🏻‍💻

[buckvalentina]

leverage au when

[garbagereceptacle]

I GOT DELETED.

A little argument over whether or not Genshin Impact shamelessly copies off Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom I guess was the final breaking point. I think the deletion/block? off Discord only really serves as a reminder that my friendship isn't really a net positive to people. I can't say this is the first time it's happened and as someone who once cried over being called a bad person, you would think I have some urge to prove otherwise.

I can't honestly tell you what drives me, and if I were brave enough to propose a nihilistic theory as to what, I would probably say hedonism and selfishness, but the truth is I can't really discuss this with anyone without any sort of negative feedback. And that isn't even a good theory because those traits just seem like symptoms to a much deeper problem. I think even admitting that to anyone would put them on alert as to how I could potentially hurt them.

Maybe I just use people as outlets for my own thoughts and entertainment and I don't care about them at all. In retrospect, it seems like a no-brainer from the outside looking in, but messing around with his girlfriend is not something you do to someone you consider your childhood best friend. And even though he forgave me quickly then, I can't help but ask if I even deserve it and if things like that make it easier to just forget about me.

I worry about the people I talk to now. Or maybe, I just worry about losing them and confirming what I already think about myself - that I deserve to be alone. Whether I bother them too much, weigh them down with too much negativity, burden them with my problems and rants. What are they getting out of talking to me really and is it truly worth it for them? I worry that people are better off and happier without me. If we're being honest, I 100% believe they are. Sometimes it feels like my thoughts and words just cast a shadow over their otherwise relatively unproblematic existence.

Do I deserve to be with anyone? I wonder if I'm hurting my girlfriend's one shot at a fulfilling life by being with me. Because I know I'm not personally fulfilled so much so that I have the urge to write a blog post to nobody about everything going on in my head. Does she deserve someone who isn't constantly questioning who they are and what their value is? Sometimes I wonder if I'm better off alone so I can't hurt anyone. Sometimes I think if this were to fall through, I probably wouldn't start a relationship with anyone again. I think life might just be easier when you leave your self-destructive tendencies to yourself. At least then, there is no one there to hammer the point home.

I wonder what I would have written about today if I hadn't found out he unadded me an hour ago.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

It was all downhill after the Cuecat

Sometime in 2001, I walked into a Radio Shack on San Francisco’s Market Street and asked for a Cuecat: a handheld barcode scanner that looked a bit like a cat and a bit like a sex toy. The clerk handed one over to me and I left, feeling a little giddy. I didn’t have to pay a cent.

The Cuecat was a good idea and a terrible idea. The good idea was to widely distribute barcode scanners to computer owners, along with software that could read and decode barcodes; the company’s marketing plan called for magazines and newspapers to print barcodes alongside ads and articles, so readers could scan them and be taken to the digital edition. To get the Cuecat into widespread use, the company raised millions in the capital markets, then mass-manufactured these things and gave them away for free at Radio Shacks around the country. Every Wired and Forbes subscriber got one in the mail!

That was the good idea (it’s basically a prototype for today’s QR-codes). The terrible idea was that this gadget would spy on you. Also, it would only work with special barcodes that had to be licensed from the manufacturer. Also, it would only work on Windows.

https://web.archive.org/web/20001017162623/http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/sep2000/nf20000928_029.htm

But the manufacturer didn’t have the last word! Not at all. A couple of enterprising hardware hackers — Pierre-Philippe Coupard and Michael Rothwell — tore down a Cuecat, dumped its ROM, and produced their own driver for it — a surveillance-free driver that worked with any barcode. You could use it to scan the UPCs on your books or CDs or DVDs to create a catalog of your media; you could use it to scan UPCs on your groceries to make a shopping list. You could do any and every one of these things, because the Cuecat was yours.

Cuecat’s manufacturer, Digital Convergence, did not like this at all. They sent out legal demand letters and even shut down some of the repositories that were hosting alternative Cuecat firmware. They changed the license agreement that came with the Cuecat software CD to prohibit reverse-engineering.

http://www.cexx.org/cuecat.htm

It didn’t matter, both as a practical matter and as a matter of law. As a practical matter, the (ahem) cat was out of the bag: there were so many web-hosting companies back then, and people mirrored the code to so many of them, the company would have its hands full chasing them all down and intimidating them into removing the code.

Then there was the law: how could you impose license terms on a gift? How could someone be bound by license terms on a CD that they simply threw away without ever opening it, much less putting it in their computer?

https://slashdot.org/story/00/09/18/1129226/digital-convergence-changes-eula-and-gets-cracked

In the end, Cuecat folded and sold off its remaining inventory. The early 2000s were not a good time to be a tech company, much less a tech company whose business model required millions of people to meekly accept a bad bargain.

Back then, tech users didn’t feel any obligation to please tech companies’ shareholders: if they backed a stupid business, that was their problem, not ours. Venture capitalists were capitalists — if they wanted us give to them according to their need and take from them according to their ability, they should be venture communists.

Last August, philosopher and Centre for Technomoral Futures director Shannon Vallor tweeted, “The saddest thing for me about modern tech’s long spiral into user manipulation and surveillance is how it has just slowly killed off the joy that people like me used to feel about new tech. Every product Meta or Amazon announces makes the future seem bleaker and grayer.”

https://twitter.com/ShannonVallor/status/1559659655097376768

She went on: “I don’t think it’s just my nostalgia, is it? There’s no longer anything being promised to us by tech companies that we actually need or asked for. Just more monitoring, more nudging, more draining of our data, our time, our joy.”

https://twitter.com/ShannonVallor/status/1559663985821106177

Today on Tumblr, @wilwheaton​ responded: “[T]here is very much no longer a feeling of ‘How can this change/improve my life?’ and a constant dread of ‘How will this complicate things as I try to maintain privacy and sanity in a world that demands I have this thing to operate.’”

https://wilwheaton.tumblr.com/post/698603648058556416/cory-doctorow-if-you-see-this-and-have-thoughts

Wil finished with, “Cory Doctorow, if you see this and have thoughts, I would LOVE to hear them.”

I’ve got thoughts. I think this all comes back to the Cuecat.

When the Cuecat launched, it was a mixed bag. That’s generally true of technology — or, indeed, any product or service. No matter how many variations a corporation offers, they can never anticipate all the ways that you will want or need to use their technology. This is especially true for the users the company values the least — poor people, people in the global south, women, sex workers, etc.

That’s what makes the phrase “So easy your mom can use it” particularly awful “Moms” are the kinds of people whose priorities and difficulties are absent from the room when tech designers gather to plan their next product. The needs of “moms” are mostly met by mastering, configuring and adapting technology, because tech doesn’t work out of the box for them:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/05/19/the-weakest-link/#moms-are-ninjas

(As an alternative, I advocate for “so easy your boss can use it,” because your boss gets to call up the IT department and shout, “I don’t care what it takes, just make it work!” Your boss can solve problems through raw exercise of authority, without recourse to ingenuity.)

Technology can’t be understood separately from technology users. This is the key insight in Donald Norman’s 2004 book Emotional Design, which argued that the ground state of all technology is broken, and the overarching task of tech users is to troubleshoot the things they use:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/04/29/banjo-nazis/#cuckoos-egg

Troubleshooting is both an art and a science: it requires both a methodical approach and creative leaps. The great crisis of troubleshooting is that the more frustrated and angry you are, the harder it is to be methodical or creative. Anger turns attention into a narrow tunnel of brittle movements and thinking.

In Emotional Design, Norman argues that technology should be beautiful and charming, because when you like a technology that has stopped working, you are able to troubleshoot it in an expansive, creative, way. Emotional Design was not merely remarkable for what it said, but for who said it.

Donald Norman, after all, was the author of the hugely influential 1998 classic The Design of Everyday Things, which counseled engineers and designers to put function over form — to design things that work well, even if that meant stripping away ornament and sidelining aesthetics.

https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/don-norman/the-design-of-everyday-things/9780465050659/

With Emotional Design, Norman argued that aesthetics were functional, because aesthetics primed users to fix the oversights and errors and blind spots of designers. It was a manifesto for competence and humility.

And yet, as digital technology has permeated deeper into our lives, it has grown less configurable, not more. Companies today succeed where Cuecat failed. Consolidation in the online world means that if you remove a link from one search engine and four social media sites, the material in question vanishes for 99% of internet users.

It’s even worse for apps: anyone who succeeds in removing an app from two app stores essentially banishes it from the world. One mobile platform uses technological and legal countermeasures to make it virtually impossible to sideload an app; the other one relies on strong-arm tactics and deceptive warnings to do so.

That means that when a modern Coupard and Rothwell decides to unfuck some piece of technology — to excise the surveillance and proprietary media requirements, leaving behind the welcome functionality — they can only do so with the sufferance of the manufacturer. If the manufacturer doesn’t like an add-on, mod, plug-in or overlay, they can use copyright takedowns, anticircumvention law, patent threats, trademark threats, cybersecurity law, contract law and other “IP” to simply banish the offending code:

https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/

Many of these laws carry dire penalties. For example, distributing a tool that bypasses an “access control” so that you can change the software on a gadget (say, to make your printer accept third-party ink) is a felony under Section 1201 of the DMCA, punishable by a $500k fine and a 5-year prison sentence.

If Cuecat’s manufacturers had simply skinned their firmware with a thin scrim of DRM, they could have threatened Coupard and Rothwell with prison sentences. The developments in “IP” over the two decades since the Cuecat have conjured up a new body of de facto law that Jay Freeman calls “felony contempt of business model.”

Once we gave companies the power to literally criminalize the reconfiguration of their products, everything changed. In the Cuecat era, a corporate meeting to plan a product that acted against its users’ interests had to ask, “How will we sweeten the pot and/or obfuscate our code so that our users don’t remove the anti-features we’re planning to harm them with?”

But in a world of Felony Contempt of Business Model, that discussion changes to “Given that we can literally imprison anyone who helps our users get more out of this product, how can we punish users who are disloyal enough to simply quit our service or switch away from our product?”

That is, “how can we raise the switching costs of our products so that users who are angry at us keep using our products?” When Facebook was planning its photos product, they deliberately designed it to tempt users into making it the sole repository of their family photos, in order to hold those photos ransom to keep Facebook users from quitting for G+:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/facebooks-secret-war-switching-costs

Companies claim that their lock-in strategies are about protecting their users: “Move into our walled garden, for it is a fortress, whose battlements bristle with fearsome warriors who will defend you from the bandits who roam the countryside”:

https://locusmag.com/2021/01/cory-doctorow-neofeudalism-and-the-digital-manor/

But this “feudal security” offers a terrible temptation to the lords of these fortresses, because once you are inside those walls, the fortress can easily be converted to a prison: these companies can abuse you with impunity, for so long as the cost of the abuse is less than the cost of the things you must give up when you leave.

The tale that companies block you from overriding their decisions is for your own good was always dubious, because companies simply can’t anticipate all the ways their products will fail you. No design team knows as much about your moment-to-moment struggles as you do.

But even where companies are sincere in their desire to be the most benevolent of dictators, the gun on the mantelpiece in Act I is destined to go off by Act III: eventually, the temptation to profit by hurting you will overpower whatever “corporate ethics” once stayed the hand of the techno-feudalist who rules over your fortress. Under feudal security, you are one lapse in corporate leadership from your protector turning into your tormentor.

When Apple launched the Ipad 12 years ago, I published an editorial entitled “Why I won’t buy an iPad (and think you shouldn’t, either),” in which I predicted that app stores would inevitable be turned against users:

https://memex.craphound.com/2010/04/01/why-i-wont-buy-an-ipad-and-think-you-shouldnt-either/

Today, Apple bans apps if they “use…a third-party service” unless they “are specifically permitted to do so under the service’s terms of use.” In other words, Apple specifically prohibits developers from offering tools that displease other companies’ shareholders, no matter whether this pleases Apple customers:

https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#intellectual-property

Note that clause 5.2.2 of Apple’s developer agreement doesn’t say “You mustn’t violate a legally enforceable term of service.” It just says, “Thou shalt not violate a EULA.” EULAs are garbage-novellas of impenetrable legalese, larded with unenforceable and unconscionable terms.

Apple sometimes will displease other companies on your behalf. For example, it instituted a one-click anti-tracking setting for Ios that cost Facebook $10 billion in a matter of months:

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/02/facebook-says-apple-ios-privacy-change-will-cost-10-billion-this-year.html

But Apple also has big plans to expand its margins by growing its own advertising network. When Apple customers choose ad-blockers that block Apple’s ads, will Apple permit it?

https://www.wired.com/story/apple-is-an-ad-company-now/

The problem with app stores isn’t whether your computing experience is “curated” — that is, whether entities you trust can produce collections of software they vouch for. The problem is when you can’t choose someone else — when leaving a platform involves high switching costs, whether that’s having to replace hardware, buy new media, or say goodbye to your friends, customers, community or family.

When a company can leverage its claims to protecting you to protect itself from you — from choices you might make that ultimately undermine its shareholders interests, even if they protect your own interests — it would be pretty goddamned naive to expect it to do otherwise.

More and more of our tools are now digital tools, whether we’re talking about social media or cars, tractors or games consoles, toothbrushes or ovens:

https://www.hln.be/economie/gentse-foodboxleverancier-mealhero-failliet-klanten-weten-van-niets~a3139f52/

And more and more, those digital tools look more like apps than Cuecats, with companies leveraging “IP” to let them control who can compete with them — and how. Indeed, browsers are becoming more app-like, rather than the other way around.

Back in 2017, the W3C took the unprecedented step of publishing a DRM standard despite this standard not having anything like the consensus that is the norm for W3C publications, and the W3C rejected a proposal to protect people who reverse-engineered that standard to add accessibility features or correct privacy defects:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/09/open-letter-w3c-director-ceo-team-and-membership

And while we’re seeing remarkable progress on Right to Repair and other policies that allow the users of technology to override the choices of vendors, there’s another strong regulatory current that embraces companies’ ability to control their users, in the hopes that these big companies will police their users to prevent bad stuff, from controversial measures like filtering for copyright infringement to more widely supported ideas like blocking child sex abuse material (CSAM, AKA “child porn”).

There are two problems with this. First, if we tell companies they must control their users (that is, block them from running plugins, mods, skins, filters, etc) then we can’t tell them that they must not control their users. It comes down to whether you want to make Mark Zuckerberg better at his job, or whether you want to abolish the job of “Mark Zuckerberg.”

https://doctorow.medium.com/unspeakable-8c7bbd4974bc

Then there’s the other problem — the gun on the mantelpiece problem. If we give big companies the power to control their users, they will face enormous internal pressure to abuse that power. This isn’t a hypothetical risk: Facebook’s top executives stand accused of accepting bribes from Onlyfans in exchange for adding performers who left Onlyfans to a terrorist watchlist, which meant they couldn’t use other platforms:

https://gizmodo.com/clegg-meta-executives-identified-in-onlyfans-bribery-su-1849649270

I’m not a fan of terrorist watchlists, for obvious reasons. But letting Facebook manage the terrorist watchlist was clearly a mistake. But Facebook’s status as a “trusted reporter” grows directly out of Facebook’s good work on moderation. The lesson is the same as the one with Apple and the ads — just because the company sometimes acts in our interests, it doesn’t follow that we should always trust them to do so.

Back to Shannon Vallor’s question about the origins of “modern tech’s long spiral into user manipulation and surveillance” and how that “killed off the joy that people like me used to feel about new tech”; and Wil Wheaton’s “constant dread of ‘How will this complicate things as I try to maintain privacy and sanity.”

Tech leaders didn’t get stupider or crueler since those halcyon days. The tech industry was and is filled with people who made their bones building weapons of mass destruction for the military-industrial complex; IBM, the company that gave us the PC, built the tabulating machines for Nazi concentration camps:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust

We didn’t replace tech investors and leaders with worse people — we have the same kinds of people but we let them get away with more. We let them buy up all their competitors. We let them use the law to lock out competitors they couldn’t buy, including those who would offer their customers tools to lower their switching costs and block abusive anti-features.

We decided to create “Felony Contempt of Business Model,” and let the creators of the next Cuecat reach beyond the walls of their corporate headquarters and into the homes of their customers, the offices of their competitors, and the handful of giant tech sites that control our online discourse, to reach into those places and strangle anything that interfered with their commercial desires.

That’s why plans to impose interoperability on tech giants are so exciting — because the problem with Facebook isn’t “the people I want to speak to are all gathered in one convenient place,” no more than the problem with app stores isn’t “these companies generally have good judgment about which apps I want to use.”

The problem is that when those companies don’t have your back, you have to pay a blisteringly high price to leave their walled gardens. That’s where interop comes in. Think of how an interoperable Facebook could let you leave behind Zuckerberg’s dominion without forswearing access to the people who matter to you:

https://www.eff.org/interoperablefacebook

Cuecats were cool. The people who made them were assholes. Interop meant that you could get the cool gadget and tell the assholes to fuck off. We have lost the ability to do so, little by little, for decades, and that’s why a new technology that seems cool no longer excites. That’s why we feel dread — because we know that a cool technology is just bait to lure us into a prison that masquerades as a fortress.

Image: Jerry Whiting (modified) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CueCat_barcode_scanner.jpg

CC BY-SA 3.0: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

[Image ID: A Cuecat scanner with a bundled cable and PS/2 adapter; it resembles a plastic cat and also, slightly, a sex toy. It is posed on a Matrix movie 'code waterfall' background and limned by a green 'supernova' light effect.]

[mattslolita]

— 𝑾𝑬𝑳𝑪𝑶𝑴𝑬 𝑻𝑶 𝑴𝑨𝑻𝑻𝑺𝑳𝑶𝑳𝑰𝑻𝑨 💌 .

"𝒕𝒊𝒕𝒕𝒊𝒆𝒔 𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒕𝒊𝒏' 𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒕𝒚, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒊'𝒎 𝒍𝒐𝒐𝒌𝒊𝒏' 𝒍𝒊𝒌𝒆 𝒂 𝒔𝒏𝒂𝒄𝒌,

💌 hi angels, i'm kiwi ! i'm eighteen, bisexual, and i'm a black writer.

💌 i'm a certified chris girl, drew starkey's wife, i also write on wattpad sometimes ( link at the bottom! ), and i love music with my entire being. i'm a west coast girly from cali, but i wanna go to different countries so bad.

— 𝑭𝑨𝑽𝑶𝑹𝑰𝑻𝑬𝑺 𝑶𝑭 𝑴𝑰𝑵𝑬 💌 .

my best friends 💌 : @luverboychris @muwapsturniolo @guccifrog @thenickgirl @bernardsbendystraws !

music 💌 : michael jackson, sza, dominic fike, latto ( if u can't tell ), the neighborhood, billie eilish, nessa barrett, lana del rey, mitski, bikini kill, halsey, marina, megan thee stallion, city girls, rihanna, migos, eminem, doja cat, fleetwood mac, taylor swift & more !

movies 💌 : the fault in our stars, scream franchise, the perks of being a wallflower, love simon, friday the 13th, carrie, halloween, the craft, it 2017, jeepers creepers, 13 going on 30, fast & furious, freddy vs. jason, mean girls, harry potter franchise, the maze runner & more !

tv shows 💌 : cobra kai, outer banks, heartbreak high, sex education, stranger things, never have i ever, on my block, ginny & georgia, heartstopper, the vampire diaries, & more !

celebs / influencers 💌 : sturniolo triplets, vereena sayed, deb smikle, quenlin blackwell, benoftheweek, johnnie guilbert, jake webber, vinnie hacker, drew starkey, why don't we, chase keith, ariana greenblatt, fannita, xochitl gomez, larray, renee rapp, sam & colby, beabadobee, nailea devora, & more !

— 𝑺𝑯𝑰𝑻 𝑰𝑶𝑵 𝑻𝑶𝑳𝑬𝑹𝑨𝑻𝑬 💌 .

racism, rude behavior, kink shaming ( unless its shit or piss ), unfriendly remarks or comments. & IF YOU DO GOT SHIT TO SAY HOP OFF ANON & SAY IT WITH YO CHEST !

— 𝑾𝑯𝑨𝑻 𝑰 𝑾𝑰𝑳𝑳 / 𝑾𝑶𝑵'𝑻 𝑾𝑹𝑰𝑻𝑬 💌 .

will 💌 : fluff, angst, smut !

won't 💌 : piss kinks, shit kinks, incest, eating somebody ass, anal cause it freaks me out ( if you like it, you do you, but i'm not gon write it ! ), threesomes UNLESS you're requesting where they strictly interact with the reader ( y/n ).

always remember you're so loved & important, & you matter my loves. i hope we can be friends & you enjoy my shit !💌

masterlist 💌!

taglist 💌!

fav fics 💌!

wattpad 💌!

face reveal 💌 !

my socials 💌 !

emoji anon list 💌 !

c.ai 💌 !

mattslolita on ig 💌 !

40-𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒉 𝒃𝒖𝒔𝒕 𝒅𝒐𝒘𝒏, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒌𝒏𝒐𝒘 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒃𝒊𝒕𝒄𝒉 𝒃𝒍𝒂𝒄𝒌."

— 𝑴𝑨𝑻𝑻𝑺𝑳𝑶𝑳𝑰𝑻𝑨 𝑺𝑰𝑮𝑵𝑰𝑵𝑮 𝑶𝑭𝑭 !💌

[grandgtaman1a]

The Holy Trinity in love with the same girl [Headcanon]

Pairing: Michael De Santa x Reader, Trevor Phillips x Reader, Franklin Clinton x Reader Characters: Michael De Santa, Trevor Phillips, Franklin Clinton, Reader[Female or Gender Neutral] Summary: Where Michael Trevor and Franklin are in love with you![Anon Request]

AN: I also wrote how the three would know about the other liking the reader Feel free to reblog and let me know your thoughts Do not repost

You are the enigmatic crew member, a highly skilled hacker who plays a crucial role in their criminal endeavors. Lester was amazed by your work and took you under the wing where you met Michael Trevor and Franklin Your intelligence and proficiency in navigating the digital underworld make you an invaluable asset to the team.

Michael’s Perspective:

Michael is drawn to your hacking skills. He sees you as a way out of the criminal world, someone who can help him find redemption. He admires your intellect and dreams of a life beyond the chaos of crime with you.

Trevor’s Perspective:

Trevor is infatuated with your fearless nature, especially when you're hacking into secure systems. He's intrigued by your ability to match his brand of insanity, and he considers you a kindred spirit. His obsession with you both excites and terrifies him.

Franklin’s Perspective:

Franklin is captivated by your charm, wit, and cool-headed approach to hacking in dangerous situations. He envisions a more stable and secure life with you, far removed from the chaos of the criminal world

You, however, keep your emotions and true motivations closely guarded. You use your allure and hacking skills to manipulate the trio to serve your hidden agenda, the nature of which remains a well-guarded secret. This love triangle adds complexity and tension to their criminal activities, making their adventures even more unpredictable as they navigate the treacherous criminal underworld, both in the real world and the digital one.

When Michael, Trevor, and Franklin all come to realize they are in love with you, it would likely lead to a complex and emotionally charged situation. Here's how they might react:

Michael's Reaction:

Michael, the more rational and calculating of the three, would initially try to keep his feelings hidden. He might feel conflicted about pursuing a romantic relationship with you, as he is also driven by his desire to escape the criminal life. He could become withdrawn and contemplative, trying to find a way to balance his love for the reader with his longing for a peaceful life. As the situation unfolds, he might try to maintain a friendship with you while struggling with his own emotions.

Trevor's Reaction:

Trevor, the impulsive and erratic member of the group, would likely react explosively. Learning that both Michael and Franklin have feelings for you would send him into a fit of jealousy and rage. He may confront the other two, leading to confrontations and potentially dangerous situations. Trevor's obsession with you could intensify, making him unpredictable and potentially reckless.

Franklin's Reaction:

Franklin, the younger and more idealistic member of the group, might initially feel guilt and insecurity upon discovering that Michael and Trevor also love you. He may worry that he's not a suitable match for her compared to the older and more experienced Michael or the wild and unpredictable Trevor. However, he could also become more determined to prove himself and win your affection.

The love triangle would create tension and conflict within the group, possibly affecting their working dynamic and leading to emotional outbursts. The reader's feelings and choices would play a crucial role in how this situation unfolds, and her decision could have significant consequences for the group's relationships and criminal endeavors.

[cyberstudious]

Books for Learning Cybersecurity

I created this post for the Studyblr Masterpost Jam, check out the tag for more cool masterposts from folks in the studyblr community!

I'll admit that I've mostly used online resources and courses so far, but these are the handful of books that I've read and recommend!

Books About Cybersecurity History

The Cuckoo's Egg by Clifford Stoll: the story of how one man noticed an odd error in a computer at UC Berkely and traced it back to an international hacking scheme. a very fun & interesting read.

Cult of the Dead Cow by Joseph Menn: a look into hacker culture and how few people took computer security seriously at the beginning, and an exploration of how cybersecurity often becomes deeply and uncomfortably intertwined with geopolitics.

Books to Learn Cybersecurity

Practical Malware Analysis by Michael Sikorski and Andrew Honig: an oldie but a goodie for getting into malware analysis. I'm currently in the middle of working through this one and having a great time.

Serious Cryptography by Jean-Philippe Aumasson: a detailed guide for understanding the nuts and bolts of cryptography (the 2nd edition is coming out this month, so it might be worth checking out the newer version).

Cybersecurity Foundations Textbooks

Computer Networking: A Top-Down Approach (7th edition) by Kurose & Ross: this was the textbook we used in the computer networks class I took in college - I think this book does a good job of explaining how the internet works and breaking concepts down to the lowest level.

Operating System Concepts (10th edition) by Silberschatz, Galvin, and Gagne: this is the textbook from my operating systems course. This is a good book to go through if you want to learn how a computer Really Works.

Books I Haven't Read (Yet) - But I Know They'll Be Good

Cybersecurity Books from No Starch Press - many books have free chapters posted here that you can read as a preview!

Books by Bruce Schneier - books on society, technology, and cryptography