Like many things, not starting when you should have doesn't make starting later worthless.
- 帖子
- 1
- 评论
- 299
- 加入于
- 7 mo. ago
- 帖子
- 1
- 评论
- 299
- 加入于
- 7 mo. ago
They'll probably still get him on murder charges. As long as they can link him to doing the act itself, he's not getting away from those consequences without jury nullification or a damn good escape plan.
There's only a few use cases where I've found I prefer it to doing things the hard way.
- As a thesaurus, since it's great for going "what's that one word that sort of means all encompassing, commonly used in reference to research/studies?" and it'll end up giving me "holistic."
- As part of other software, such as how Linkwarden automatically tags bookmarks by category when I add them
- Double checking the answers I've come up with in regard to hyper-specific questions (usually about how a given piece of software can/can't be used, or how it'll interact with something else) just to make sure I'm not blatantly missing anything.
However, I try to avoid using it for anything that otherwise requires productive mental effort, because I find that I end up being a lot more informed and capable if I spend 5 minutes going through sites, learning about a topic, identifying wrong answers, and being able to put together better new queries in the first place, than I do if I ask a chatbot, even if it pulls from those same sources.
When you have a chatbot summarize or combine/condense information, you'll always lose nuance and additional context, and very frequently that context will actually be helpful to your overall understanding. There's also many cases where, for example, someone on a forum explains an issue a bit, and their profile has more related information on it that an LLM simply wouldn't go for, only summarizing from their one response on that page. This can lead me down a rabbit hole that then leads me to finding other good sources. Maybe someone mentions that a particular site is helpful for what I'm looking for, and that then becomes something I use more frequently when I do searches for things, whereas an LLM would have just ignored that comment.
However gmail is a large, incredibly well known service, and many sites understand that the + on gmail specifically is for subaddresses and will deny using the same email with subaddresses different times.
Contrast that with just using dashes like Port87, and most systems don't have anything made to parse for dashes, as it could then result in problems where an email service like Gmail, or any other provider out there, allows people to put dashes in their base email, and someone can effectively block someone else from signing up for a service by making a new account named theirname-1, signing up, then the service would think that theirname-1 is also owned by theirname, and block theirname from signing up later.
The + is a relatively well known standard for email subaddressing, but dashes are primarily used by people just inside their email addresses instead of a space, for example. Thus, most server side implementations will never be configured to understand dashes as indicating a label, specifically for your domain, they'll just see a large volume of constantly created new emails, that act like a temporary email service, and assume you're one.
This has the same problem as before, where you're not large enough to justify being specially considered by login pages that will understand what your labels are, but are also not going to get to that scale if you get filtered out as a temporary email service.
I'm probably going to stop responding now, as I think that's about all I can contribute, but I'd just say that if this is the exact mechanism by which you plan to implement subaddressing, make sure you're frequently checking any widely used blocklists online for temporary email domains, because someone will probably end up submitting your domain there at some point based on the behavior of the service, and it's incredibly hard to get off once you're on. (and consider making a page on the site explaining why you're not a temporary email service, like SimpleLogin has)
but the fact that big companies definitely will block my domain if I do means it’s a no-go.
They'll do that with your regular domain regardless if enough people start using it, which is why I'm concerned this might result in your entire primary domain being flagged as a temporary email service.
For example, there's no distinction from the perspective of the service to a domain creating aliases that are per-account, entirely random each time, and a domain creating aliases that use a standard format of yourname-service, because at the end of the day, users can still make unlimited emails for a given service (e.g. yourname-1, yourname-2, yourname-3, and they all sign up for the same site)
The reason why SimpleLogin, now owned by Proton, doesn't offer proton.me addresses, and the reason why Proton, Tuta, and other email providers all limit the number of aliases you can make with the base domain to a set amount, and for paid users only (e.g. Proton limits you to 15 total, and you can only delete and replace 1 per year), is because, for example, if everyone could make unlimited emails on proton.me, then proton.me would get flagged as a temporary email service.
I'm not saying I hate the idea at all, I love to see more competition and useful tools coming to the email space when so much of it is dominated by just Google and a few more privacy-focused providers like Tuta and Proton, but I'm worried this mechanism will just get you flagged as a temporary email service by companies, just like most of SimpleLogin's domains were on many services by default. (though they're still quite usable on 99% of the web)
From the perspective of sites these emails will be used on, there's no difference between how your domain acts, and how a temporary email service does, because no system exists that is implemented by all these companies to specially identify emails from your domain, know they're using "labels", and filter out duplicate registrations accordingly.
To do so would require scale, but you probably won't get scale unless you can avoid getting flagged as a temporary email service, which won't happen unless those services all had such a system in place to the first place.
Even if they do, most people will use identifiable service names, so then you'd just have to brute force with yourname-google, yourname-facebook, yourname-lemmy, yourname-bank, etc. Still a major risk compared to traditional aliasing services in my opinion.
This is useful for preventing general spam and whatnot, but it suffers from the flaw that if you sign up for my service (or more likely, sign up for a service I later get access to a data breach from) using an email like yourname-myservice@port87.com, I can instantly know that your bare address is yourname@port87.com.
A system like SimpleLogin/Proton Pass Aliases would be much better, where addresses are truly unique, don't leak your original email in their names, but can be applied to any domain (including custom subdomains).
This could either be on the main domain, or to prevent cramming, a secondary domain just for aliases.
It's because the outlet that wrote the article is a finance-based news outlet, which started talking more about crypto once it became popular because it allowed them to profit off the newer crypto boom instead of just off stock speculation.
They just sprinkle some non-financial news in like this sometimes because it drives clicks from people not explicitly looking for finance content, in the hopes they'll stick around, and it allows them to capture views from crypto investors that otherwise would go to other outlets for general news events.
As someone formerly very invested into crypto as not just an asset but an ideological sphere, I can tell you that when you're in what is very frequently just an echo chamber like that, everything feels like crypto to you. Any financial regulations are just the government trying to stop you from using crypto. Any trade deals between countries are just ways you can argue for a replacement of fiat currency with a cryptocurrency.
And any civil or economic unrest, such as what's happening in Nepal, in which some people might turn to using cryptocurrency to escape any form of regulatory pressure is a perfect time to promote how everyone's using crypto there now, and this is a turning point for the industry, so just keep buying more, keep holding, and keep promoting it to everyone you know. (this point in particular should be all too familiar if you ever try asking a Bitcoin bro what the practical use of Bitcoin is other than being majority speculation, as they'll almost certainly discuss "unbanked" people in lower income countries, arguing why they need to use Bitcoin with higher transaction fees and a reliance on a phone or computer over just cash)
People can care about school shootings while also not wanting to see a dying body and someone's bloody gunshot wound randomly appear on their timeline when they're just trying to look at some fucking memes.
This is like if I started filling your timeline with random snuff films and gore videos, and when you complained, went "OH you don't like this? Well the human trafficking victims used in these videos didn't either."
He founded Turning Point USA, which did a whole heck of a lot of bad things, not to mention that his rhetoric actively radicalized many people, who will then perpetuate much more harm.
For example, he advocated against abortion even in cases of rape, which then helped push people to support local legislation against abortion in all cases, which is then correlated with an increase in deaths during and just after pregnancy.
He actively spread COVID misinformation that led to many people not getting vaccinated, which likely killed some of those unlucky, and he actively perpetuated anti-immigrant rhetoric that likely played at least some part in the violence directed toward them.
This doesn't even begin to get into his anti-queer views, the fact TPUSA was influential in growing Trump's campaign and popularity, his support for Israel's genocide, or any of the knock-on effects caused from the people he himself radicalized.
So yes, he most definitely had an effect.
He was shot in the neck, not the head, but he did go limp right after being shot. His brain would have still been intact though, so he would have at least had a moment to know what had happened, but I don't know if he was actually conscious later or if that had completely stopped his brain from receiving blood flow/oxygen.
If your political ideology is based around advocating for harm to other groups of people, violence targeted at you shouldn't be surprising. FAFO.
REST IN PISS 🫡🇺🇸🦅🗽💥
The right loves to use violence, or threats of violence, as a cudgel against their enemies. A lot of their messaging relies on them seeming strong and powerful. For example, why do you think every time trump generates an AI image of himself, he's always jacked as hell?
Just like how when neo-Nazi Richard Spencer was punched in the face, he later said he was afraid to go out in public and decided not to go harass people at a women's march he had been planning to go to, someone like Charlie Kirk getting shot can prevent his messaging from spreading as much going forward.
If he lives, he'll be afraid to do as many public appearances, and will probably need to spend a lot more money on private security, stay further away from crowds, and not be able to personally greet people up close.
If he dies, other conservative commentators might fear the same fate happening to them, and could also face similar effects as a result.
Trump's shooting was more of a special case, because he has a significant cult of personality, so it was very easy to make him a martyr. But look at him now, always behind bulletproof glass at speeches, looking cowardly by comparison, and he's been justifiably mocked for it time and time again. Even being shot and turned into a martyr can't prevent the ridicule you'll get from looking like a pathetic, weak crony attempting to look like a strongman.
Sometimes words are a form of violence.
Especially in his case. Not only is he a driving force that substantially helped Trump get elected, but he spread COVID misinformation that likely got people killed, helped anti-abortion bills pass (he's even against abortion in cases of rape), he's a climate denialist that directly supports expanding fossil fuel expansion at the expense of the planet, and has promoted the great replacement theory, among so many other disgusting things.
He broadcasts this to an audience of millions of people, some of which may take radical actions of their own as a result of his statements. The amount of harm he's caused for so many innocent people is infinitely larger than the harm just caused to him, or even his wife and kids as a result of this shooting.
Why not? This has an essentially identical threat model compared to Signal's existing privacy considerations.
Backups are encrypted with a key only you have access to. If it's about concern that Signal could read your messages, this means they can't. If it's about concern that Signal could store your encrypted messages for later, they can already do that if they wanted to, since messages pass through their servers in the first place, and they could just implement a network tap.
which pissed off investors (good)
This is actually the opposite of what's the case.
Costco shareholders overwhelmingly voted against a review of DEI programs for "risks" that could have led to them being shut down. 98% of shareholders voted against a review.
Most investors still recognize that DEI initiatives are profitable overall, not just for optics for what is still a large portion of their customer base (especially considering the short attention spans of conservatives annoyed at DEI initiatives), but because it broadly tends to increase worker performance overall.
the sticker, for anyone curious.
Great article, would highly recommend anyone with the time give it a full read through.
Wikipedia is incredibly valuable, and insanely well edited and put together, and we're all lucky to have something like it available for free.
That man replying has over 101,000 tweets, at an average of ninety six every single day since he made his account 💀
Someone might be just a little chronically online, and his post/reply history seems to show that.