FriendOfDeSoto

I am afraid you are “fucked” if you think AJ is an example of independent media and that YT numbers are enough proof for media suppression. Most people on this planet do not watch YT. And the ones who do tend to be influenced by their algorithms that continuously change. That makes YT numbers as slippery as an eel in a lubricant factory. By which I mean unreliable to start a conspiracy theory about a poor, cash strapped, impeccably impartial artisan media outlet from Qatar. Slash s.

Some of the technical info flew right over my head in the first article. What I took from the piece is that he has valid points so far as I can see and understand it. I would say nevertheless the author was a bit biased as well. And it’s 3 years old. It may still be accurate, IDK.

I use F-Droid and have been for a while and I’m not aware of any issues this could’ve caused me. But I’m also not using it for essential systems. Not for browsers, VPN, etc. I have downloaded games, a couple of notes apps, that sort of thing. I would never recommend you get all your apps from there. It’s an addition to Google or your usual poison.

Security experts will never be happy; that’s their job. The author is also talking about your threat model. Are you okay with certain risks? The truth is also that somebody could screw you over on Google Play. It may be less likely comparatively but not impossible. So you try to jump from rock to rock hoping no alligator catches you. So far no alligator got me.

Because we don’t want an American system where 16 blorbs equal 1 waboom. We want as much centi and milli as possible! Resistance is futile.

We humans always underestimate the time it actually takes for a tech to change the world. We should travel in self-flying flying cars and on hoverboards already but we’re not.

The disseminators of so-called AI have a vested interest in making it seem it’s the magical solution to all our problems. The tech press seems to have had a good swig from the koolaid as well overall. We have such a warped perception of new tech, we always see it as magical beans. The internet will democratize the world - hasn’t happened; I think we’ve regressed actually as a planet. Fully self-drving cars will happen by 2020 - looks at calendar. Blockchain will revolutionize everything - it really only provided a way for fraudsters, ransomware dicks, and drug dealers to get paid. Now it’s so-called AI.

I think the history books will at some point summarize the introduction of so-called AI as OpenAI taking a gamble with half-baked tech, provoking its panicked competitors into a half-baked game of oneupmanship. We arrived at the plateau in the hockey stick graph in record time burning an incredible amount of resources, both fiscal and earthly. Despite massive influences on the labor market and creative industries, it turned out to be a fart in the wind because skynet happened a 100 years later. I’m guessing 100 so it’s probably much later.

Why isn’t this a popular thing? Because the majority of people on this planet does not care about time zones and either doesn’t have to deal with them at all or doesn’t see a problem when they do. It’s tradition, it’s convention, it’s well-established, and it just works for most people. We should abolish DST but otherwise this ship has sailed.

We should use the aftermath of a civilization killing meteor hit or thermonuclear war to decimalize time keeping - it would need a catastrophic, cataclysmic event like that. A day is now 100 jiffies long. Each jiffy has 100 centijiffies. Now, if we could alter the time it takes the Earth to orbit the sun to something more even that’d be great.

It’s not just Americans. There are many countries in Asia where the default is year month day. If you ever had to organize files by name and date this is the supreme sorting order. Both Europe and North America are getting it wrong.

If this gets you mad don’t ever look into how the French count from 80 to 99. Or how languages disagree on what’s blue or green. These things happen.

Why is this in privacy? Because it’s an obfuscation, which is good, or because there will be another database to be hacked, which is bad?

I was disappointed they didn’t go for a system like these three words. Or just structuring their addresses around street names and house numbers, like normal people. If you don’t know: currently, addresses are not written as 123 Example Road but mostly as Subdistrict name and number, Block number, House number. The splits into numbered subdistricts is fairly random, the block split just fairly less random, and the house numbers can be in order of building completion so number 6 can be next to number 13. Most streets have no name. It’s so utterly absurd that even if you knew the address there is no guarantee you will actually find the right place without a map provider with correct addresses. It’s a miracle not more people die because first responders couldn’t find the right address. But they don’t change this system, no, they just exchange one incomprehensible system with rando numbers and letters! Well done, the Post Office.

Depends on your definition of common. When the movable type printing press came to the British Isles, the available characters didn’t include the thorn so printers used the y as a stand-in. It was the beginning of the end and all “ye olde shoppe” signs are just a snapshot of a particular time in history.

You read the story. They said he died of exhaustion. It’s the Daily Mail. It doesn’t have to be true what they say.

I think if your mind is sufficiently obsessive you can override all the natural countermeasures your body uses to get you to r&r. You pass a point of no return and you fall asleep but that’s the end. Not allowing people to sleep is a form of torture that can kill. Much like starving someone.

This guy allegedly also smoked and drank like an idiot. That couldn’t have been helpful under the circumstances.

I think the sound you’re hearing is a bunch of people creating throwaway accounts for this one. Not me though. I’m a saint.

Perp walks. Teachers in school in front of class. Other kids in school being mean. Public dress downs at work. I’m sure there are more. Not all perps walked reoffend. Kids get their shit together because they don’t want to be made to look silly in front of their peers. I think for some employees this works similarily.

Shaming only works if the shamed feels any. The doublers-down are often the ones who don’t feel shame. So it was the wrong tool for the job. Won’t work on 47 if you know what I mean.

Just to clarify: I would personally put this tool in the “break glass in case of last resort” section of the tool box. But I’ve worked with bosses who didn’t put these restrictions on themselves and it can work.

You could question their leadership qualities if you wanted to. That’s a benefit of arm chairing this stuff in an internet forum.

Just by origin of the word polyglot means you have many tongues. Tongues is of course well established as a stand-in for languages. If you can speak more than one, you fall under the definition.

I think people have attached more to the term than just that though. I’m thinking of well traveled and culturally sensitive as well. Somebody who would be alright no matter where you dropped them.

How many languages can your better half say good morning in? She might just be trying to pay you a compliment and you with your humilis gloriatio are not having it. In any case, I wouldn’t recommend going back to her with arguments obtained from a random group of internet users to settle your interpersonal disagreement.

I was shooting for “neutral you”.

I think you missed.

I assumed that you were also a fan.

You know what you do when you assume, don’t you?

Thus any course of action that happens to also serve it warrants scrutiny.

If that’s what you think I’m surprised you asked the question in the first place considering one of the binary choices you provided is essentially d-humping. Your mind is already made up. I also feel you’re moving the goal posts. You asked who is more idiotic, not whose behavior should be under more scrutiny.

So I wonder what “you” you, and from here on that means you personally unless otherwise stated, are referring to. Are you ascribing idiot-shouting behavior to me personally? Or are you referring to the neutral “you,” which can be replaced with “one?” The reason I’m wondering is that I have given no indication that I shout at idiots but your reply could be incorrectly construed in such a way that I do. Which then doesn’t make the motive warning any clearer also. Because it could be a interpreted as meaning I like to be “dominance-humping” and I ought to reflect on that. Or that my reasoning is too Darwinistic. Or that I shouldn’t judge tight calls by small statistical margins. Or that I like correcting people? Etc. It just isn’t clear.

If this was pointed at my personally then you in particular and one in general should keep in mind that the person answering a binary question of the calibre “Which is worse, the plague or cholera?” doesn’t necessarily need to be suffering from either disease to make an assessment. So looping back to your OG query: I would say it’s better not to shout at anyone in general. But I’m also sure you and I after careful deliberation could agree on some exceptions relating to your query that aren’t monkey business. E.g. the idiot could be in danger, the idiot could be a racist abusing the marginalized, the idiot could be hard of hearing, etc. This sort of longer discussion isn’t encouraged by a binary prompt.

If we have defined “idiotic” to a sufficiently objective degree, I think the idiot wins the race. The shouter - although not in the best manner - is at least trying to make the idiot aware of their transgression. It’s a reaction to the idiotic behavior, not out of the blue. And while it will not work in correcting the idiot’s behavior all the time, there is at least the chance that the reaction is memorable to the idiot - public shaming is s powerful tool - which could lead to reflection, and thus prevent a recurrence. It’s these small odds that tilt this seesaw of a question for me.

Let’s say you’re right and you’ve prevented the birth of Adolf or altered him to send him to another life trajectory. Who is to say that there wouldn’t be another mad person, naturally a man, who would rise to power and commit similar if not even worse crimes. It’s not only the person that made the fuehrer possible, it’s also everything happening in the world, especially politics at the time. So you’ve bumped Adolf but you’ve created Anton who was similarly radicalized but he wasn’t a landscape painter, he was a physics major and he made Germany develop nuclear weapons much faster. So now you have to go back and disturb Anton’s conception. Which brings about fuehrer Armin and so forth. You might be stuck in a time loop you’ll never be able to stop because you can’t control all the variables.

But we already know what to expect thanks to Stormy Daniels.

It’s where all good engagements start!

…

No, I mean engagements to marry.

…

Is it just me? It’s just me, is it. Oh, okay.

qA fA qing plaH! Today is a good day to die!

I do not sense this. Your experience is your own. Just keep in mind you’re looking at a sliver of the whole thing at the best of times. You’re too tiny a dataset, especially considering you just made the sensible swap.