SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the we-promise-little-to-no-injury-or-your-money-back dept.
Fantastical News Everyone! Remember an earlier SN article about CELLMATE, a male chastity device that got hacked and would not unlock your hardware? Well, now the maker of that IoT device says it's now totally safe to put your equipment into their device once again! They promise! This time for sure! Nothing could go wrong!
While we've covered the Internet of Broken Things for some time, where companies fail to secure the devices they sell which connect to the internet, the entire genre sort of jumped the shark in October of last year. That's when Qiui, a Chinese company, was found to have sold a penis chastity lock that communicates with an API that was wide open and sans any password protection. The end result is that users of a device that locks up their private parts could enjoy those private parts entirely at the pleasure of nefarious third parties. Qiui pushed out a fix to the API... but didn't do so for existing users, only new devices. Why? Well, the company stated that pushing it out to existing devices would again cause them to all lock up, with no override available. Understandably, there wasn't a whole lot of interest in the company's devices at that point.
But fear not, target market for penis chastity locks! Qiui says it's now totally safe to use the product again!
Since this device uses a proprietary API, there is still the issue of Vendor Lock In to be concerned about.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 11 2021, @08:38PM (2 children)
The reason he didn't "get" your joke (and neither did I) is because chastity is SELF-IMPOSED. In your joke, the man wasn't chaste at all; the female refused him. To fix your joke, you should change "chastity" to "birth control device."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2021, @06:54AM (1 child)
But, the problem with all of this is, besides the bizarre notion of "chastity devices" outside of succession to the throne in some medieval country, like Formerly Grate Britain, is that "inchaste" has the connotation of a negation, as with "incontinent" "incapable" or "incest". Now in the parlance of our time (but not on Parler, since delenda est), "incel" is a shortening, a, what do you call it? a shortening of "involuntary celibate", which I understand was originally "invcel", but since that is too weird and to pronounce which something in your mouth, as shortened further to "incel". Not the "in" in "incel" has not negatory connotation, and in fact reinforces the fact of celibacy. "Inchaste" on the other hand, runs the risk of being the same as "unchaste", which would suggest the male equivalents of promiscuity, like "man-whore", "gigilo", Bobby, or Proud Boy. None of those are the intended meanings, so I suggest we drop the whole topic, lock it up in a device that would leave no ambiguity about whether one has had sex, or not, like just the term "incel".
Now, as for an "involuntary involuntary celibate", does the rule of the double negative apply, or no?
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday February 12 2021, @08:48AM
Ari (worked it out by /delenda est/, it took so long because of these uncharacteristic slips), there is no "inchaste", only "unchaste", there's no need for any new coinings for distinctions without a difference, your risk is imaginary. I'm also surprised you didn't highlight that "unchaste" is at its core the *same* word as "incest", both were ~"lacking purity" in their latinate origins. And a bonus cookie for those who love racist trivia, it's the same origin as "caste" too.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves