And what they can’t seem to comprehend is that “their guy” won’t be “their guy” as soon as he doesn’t need them anymore.

So?

This is for Australia, but it applies to the US just as well. https://youtu.be/N3WTlyuhDs0?si=-xEDiCuN4bAeUWfa

researchers designed a model that could generate 753 MWh of energy annually. That’s enough to power roughly 753 homes for about five weeks

Why can’t the writers of these articles make useful comparisons? Can they just not do basic math? Each tower can generate enough electricity for about 72 homes… period. Just say that. No apples and oranges required.

At this point (earlier, actually), anybody still using that platform is guilty of condoning his behavior. They should all be ashamed of themselves.

Why are you still on twatter?

May you never grow tired of hearing the truth.

This is what I was thinking at first. This just looks like classic chain letter.

But on rereading, it appears that the person at the top is controlling who’s sending books to who, and might even be dictating where you buy the book from, which is definitely a scam.

My guess on how this works. Upon DMing the person in control, you’re instructed to buy a book from a specific website (that they control) and have the book shipped directly from there to the “stranger.”. However, “stranger” doesn’t actually exist, no books are ever sent, and the person running this whole scam is just pocketing the money rubes spend on “books”.

Who says it was accidental?

Pro tip: Tar knows what to do if you try to untar a tar.gz file. It Just Works™.

My pihole prevents me from knowing what you’re talking about.

It selects people who don’t want to change a failing system because they are great at gaming that system.

Reminds me of the current American political system and the politicians it selects for us.

I don’t understand why so many people can’t just go get their own damn food. Uber eats hasn’t been around long enough for you all to have forgotten what you did before, has it? How did you survive back then?

Enshitification

I had no idea Reagan was responsible for people not knowing how to use capital letters.

Edit: Reagan was, apparently, also responsible for people misspelling Reagan. 🫣

I’m sure a couple of intrepid Ukrainian farmers with tractors could get the job done before sunset.

I vow from this point forward to always pronounce it, BEE-ka-chefs.

WTF are you talking about? All I’m saying is that if you write code (that in the context of this discussion passes arguments to a method you didn’t write, that may not be the type the author of the method expected someone to pass, but really, that’s completely beside the point), you should, oh, I don’t know, maybe test that it actually works, and maybe even (gasp) write some automated tests so that if anything changes that breaks the expected behavior, the team immediately knows about it and can make appropriate changes to fix it. You don’t need a strongly typed language to do any of that. You just need to do your job.

Theoretically, they’ll test and notice that doesn’t work and fix their code before they deploy it to production.

Don’t get too excited.

Although the UK government has said that it now won’t force unproven technology on tech companies, and that it essentially won’t use the powers under the bill, the controversial clauses remain within the legislation, which is still likely to pass into law. “It’s not gone away, but it’s a step in the right direction,” Woodward says.

James Baker, campaign manager for the Open Rights Group, a nonprofit that has campaigned against the law’s passage, says that the continued existence of the powers within the law means encryption-breaking surveillance could still be introduced in the future. “It would be better if these powers were completely removed from the bill,” he adds.

But some are less positive about the apparent volte-face. “Nothing has changed,” says Matthew Hodgson, CEO of UK-based Element, which supplies end-to-end encrypted messaging to militaries and governments. “It’s only what’s actually written in the bill that matters. Scanning is fundamentally incompatible with end-to-end encrypted messaging apps. Scanning bypasses the encryption in order to scan, exposing your messages to attackers. So all ‘until it’s technically feasible’ means is opening the door to scanning in future rather than scanning today. It’s not a change, it’s kicking the can down the road.”