The creators sell adventisement space and wants to advertisers to know that their channel is a good investment, so the more they can prove to the advertisers that their sponsor segments arent skipped, the more they can charge for it.

exactly

I wanna update my arch with a single command/click, no confirms.

The whole forum: Nooooo!!! You’re gonna break your system!! You’ll regret this!! Nooooooooo!

Meanwhile 99% of people just spam yes at their terminal when updating and restore a snapshot when things don’t work out.

I never understood how a statistical word-predicting model was expected to be obedient in the first place… of course we can train the model to say yes rather than no to command-sounding phrases, but thats a rather shallow mechanism.

What if the gov has access to both tor nodes, cloudfare infrastructure and mozilla servers?

They are both stupid and dishonest

During the pandemic, bolsonaro was catering to antivax and his whole family was pretending they werent getting vaccinated. But a leaked facebook post by his sons wife showed her mocking antivaxers, saying she was vaccinating her daughter… Theyre just playing the roles they were assigned to in public.

Use the first version with personal relationships. Dont let paranoia ruin your social circle.

With politics, assume the worst.

deleted by creator

It must really be empty… Two contradictory assumptions lol

People wouldnt move. They know its not secure and they dont care enough.

Telegram doesnt even pretend to be end to end encrypted.

Thats a good insight, i think youre right. I felt that playing fallout new vegas

Isnt security mostly achieved by heavy obscurity? A password secures because other people dont know what it is, it is obscured.

It isnt optimized. Its gibberish written just to give some weight to the headline. People do bad jobs at science popularization too.

There are a bunch of things to research on fusion. Maybe they just thought this specific thing was out of reach, but were still trying to do other things.

Like the PvsNP computer science problem. Most computer scientists believe its impossible to make a polynomial algorithm that solves the traveling salesman problem, so most dont even try. But we dont know for certain that its actually impossible.

Everybody has issues they need to work on, if you can talk openly about those “red flagish” issues, maybe its not that hard to be around you…

I feel like instead of changing the name, we should stop justifying it on “equality”. The purpose of the movement is to stop a form of oppression. The name of the movement clearly takes the side of the oppressed, recognizing the oppression. Saying that the movement is for “equality” backpedals the recognition that an oppression exists and the discussion shifts to another point of derailment like “but arent men and women naturally different in some ways? is equality actually appropriate? what is equality?”

The productive feminist discussions are in debating the oppressions that exist and how to change them, not getting tangled in teological discussions about “nature” and “equality”.

I dont see how they were arguing for subdivisions. There are in fact many problems to solve, and we should unite to solve them. But if we are talking about a specific problem, we should use specific language. This shouldnt prevent us from seeing that there are common roots to all these problems.

I remember lifting one of these bent pins with a kitchen knife feeling like i probably was making the problem worse… but it ended up working fine