FriendOfDeSoto

They are a bit vague on this but I suspect all of these attack vectors start with LEOs having physical access to the unlocked phone. They then set up a trusted desktop without the phone owners knowing.

Which is clever, to be fair. Whether or not that’s legal is already a court case. The law is so frightfully grey.

That’s ucked fup.

Funny enough it almost never means they care.

The further into the future you are trying to predict the weather, the more the reliability drops. The last time I heard a meteorologist talk about it, it was 5 days into the future for a specific location. Anything more than that was as reliable as reading tea leaves. You can say it’ll rain in Asia 10 days from now but you cannot say with any certainty it’ll rain in this village.

The climate which we ruined will provide us with punishment. Warmer oceans will give us stronger tropical storms. But they’ve gotten pretty good at detecting and outlining their likely paths. That sort of predicting is likely to improve with more storms and more data. Another suitable punishment is torrential train causing flash flooding. In the places with good satellite cover, they can see that and warn people with an hour’s lead time or thereabouts. The time span is short but the prediction accuracy is good.

We as consumers are not good judges of the weatherpeople. We look at our phones and form an opinion. But we don’t investigate where the data came from, which LLM may have added its hallucinations, and what other corners may have been cut to get us this information, which we don’t pay for. So we see it’s pissing down outside, the forecast was for blue skies, ergo the weatherpeople are getting worse at their job. When it is more likely the quality of the free data declined or somebody asked ChatGPT and Claude.

Language has an influence on how one thinks. But this shower thought smacks of too great a generalization to me.

There are few feces filled salvoes flung at Melon Usk that I would object to. This is not one of them. The question I have though is this: do we need a new Twitter? It had its time in the sun but most people look back at it through rose tinted glasses. Before the takeover by the son of South African emerald mine owners, Twitter was in deep trouble. It had cultural relevance but was a financial flop. It benefited from being the first service of its kind with sufficient reach. I don’t think Twitter would have survived without the Nazi saluting shithead either. Its decline would have been more graceful by comparison. It would have done it without the bullshit tsunami emanating from the top, it wouldn’t have had the money to digitally undress people or other adventures in so-called AI, but I believe it would have faded anyway. People have split up from the one consensus platform to many different ones and making people switch is hard. So coming back now with a new Twitter is like announcing we will electrocute another Topsy next week. That turned heads more than a century ago but we have moved on.

If a guillotine is not okay, how about a piece of cake? It has the French Revolution connection but looks cute and delicious.

The Marie Antoinette quote is probably apocryphal but wgaf.

A home doesn’t equal having a toilet either everywhere on this planet. I remember walking through areas of Shanghai in the early 2000s where chamber pots were collected and emptied in the morning. Erecting a roof is easier than hooking up to water and sewage pipes.

But now they want a court to treat that click as though an 8-year-old knowingly negotiated away her right to have these issues heard. It’s insulting.

In the court of public opinion, sharpen your pitchforks, light your torches, and move on Roblox HQ. This is objectively a silly argument.

Made in a court of law. Where lawyers play by different established rules. Where they are often compelled by those rules to pursue every possible avenue to get the best result for their client. Where they may be held accountable when mishandling their case. Where company execs push their own moral compass out of the way not because they believe this argument but out of a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. It’s a clusterfuck of obligations.

My gut feeling is they probably know this argument won’t hold up in court. But it may just knock whatever punishment awaits them down a peg or two.

We also share half of our DNA with bananas. Therefore, we are also siblings of bananas.

There are places on this planet where mothers just breastfeed in public and nobody cares. There are places where they only do it in private. And then there are places where it’s something in between. Some do it in private because they don’t want creepy stares. Some dgaf any more because they haven’t slept for longer than an hour at a time since giving birth. More reasons exist for either preference.

You laid the creepy landmine yourself so that’s the most likely explanation for any down vote. Also, as a young parent you will learn that nobody cares about your thoughts on parenthood outside of a small circle of close family and friends. The same applies to being shown pictures, or worse, videos of your kid.

Any slightly controversial post illustrated with an image has the look of attempted rage bait too.

I’m not debating you on fashion choices. I’m pointing out that you yourself use class to describe folks. You can’t fight against the class system when you write of “working class” yourself. And in a way that answers your question: it is ingrained in people.

(the typical getup of a white, working-class British lad)

You perpetuate it yourself.

Call me cynical but I do think an outlet called oil price dot com may not be entirely impartial when they report on this. That is not to say what they wrote here is wrong; I wouldn’t know. It just has a touch of pot and kettle about it.

Since the power networks are linked and European countries import and export electricity, it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that next to renewables power from gas stepped in to fill the nuclear gap. And the price for natural gas is often linked to a certain other commodity price.

Per your definition, the effects of loyalty are always per se negative. I don’t doubt that in many situations this is true. I don’t think it’s always true. And a lot of it has to do with how we socialize. We need strong bonds. On a purely rational level, I’d be inclined to agree with you. We aren’t very rational though.

If my hypothetical friend, out of the blue, got drunk, got behind the wheel, and ran somebody over, many people might turn away. If I stayed by their side, helped them arrange themselves in this new life of guilt, helped them make restitutions, and kept them from sliding into isolation and depression, my loyalty could be seen as a force for good in a bad situation. I could still donate to cover the victim’s medical costs or funeral. There are bonds that keep us together even when we effed up.

Now, if I had willfully ignored all signs of alcohol abuse before, I think I’d be back on your page. So what I’m saying is we can create scenarios of loyalty with good outcomes. So the categorical dismissal as something negative isn’t true.

I get she was frustrated. I get this was a joke. You don’t make bomb jokes in line at the TSA either.

She may have overestimated the degree of privacy her DMs had. That’s also on her. Other e2e encrypted services are available to make the crass jokes. But if one of the three recipients had also failed to get the joke, a Signal chat would’ve sufficed to get those deputies showing up as well.

And one shouldn’t expect that a company, even of dwindling importance as Snapchat, won’t do everything in their power to cover their asses. Imagine if this teacher did go amok and they flagged it but did nothing.

If you can’t (or won’t) cut down on having firearms freely available, and if you cannot (or will not) do more on the mental health side of prevention, and you have already invented bullet proof whiteboards, doors like battlefield tanks, and implemented a system of metal detector entry checks and maybe deployed an armed guard, then this is an almost good idea. It’s the blinking light in the window and an alarm system sticker on the window that may deter a thief but for school shootings.

I’m not sure about pepper spray. Is a blind shooter unloading their AR-15 magazine an improvement over a fully sighted one? Why aren’t they equipping them with tranquilizer darts? Cross promotion potential for zoos as well.

What are the odds that we get coordinated school attacks and we find out one part-time student at the control center can’t fly 5 drones in 5 different high schools at the same time?

If you are something like 4chan or a descendant of that type of website, the answer is as easy as that. If you are Xwitter or Facebook it is not. You’re too big. You may have opened an office in the country, either because it was a legal requirement to continue operating in the country or because you collect money through it. So throwing your hands up and saying eff you we just don’t serve your country any more comes with a cost. Your ad money now needs to be paid abroad, which comes with the danger of increasing the cost for advertisers who now need to pay in dollars rather than pounds. And the representative in the local office, which you may want to close now, may find themselves in court for all the infractions that occurred before you threw your hands up (something that happened in Brazil IIRC). Also, you want the people who make the laws continue to use your platform to give it relevance. A Melon Usk Xwitter hissy fit may finally drive the rest of the politicians away. Loss of relevance will translate to loss of money.

The internet is multilaterally interdependent and scale matters.

This looked totally legit until

secure communication channels below. TELEGRAM

You are making this up.

I don’t think I am. I was in at least two threads where people just referred to them as Nazis and in a stage of outrage weren’t open to other interpretations. However, my post can be taken as all users who got mad called them Nazis. Some got mad and didn’t call them Nazis. That’s why I said assholes are still assholes.

It is mathematically correct to say that a portion of the energy I may contribute to Mullvad will end up financing fascism.

It’s mathematically correct to say a portion of your fees in the past may have ended up in the coffers of the Örebro Party. It seems likely that continuing payments to the company may filter through Daniel to them as well. Facism is traditionally associated with right-wing extremism. This party is a Frankenstein monster of traditional associations and they lean further to the left than to the right, except on immigration. With “remigration” as the de rigeur pipe dream corner stone. Xenophobia alone doesn’t fascism make. The Soviet Union wasn’t exactly a hit destination for immigrants. So we either enlarge the definition of fascism to include these horseshoe loonies. Or we need a new word. Or we just agree to call them assholes and any continuing payments to Mullvad carry a mathematical risk of further financing assholes, more than one.