Can someone please paraphrase the following which I didn’t understand?

Somebody raised to believe they have high IQ is more likely to fall for this than somebody raised to think less of their own intellectual capabilities. Subjective validation is a quirk of the human mind. We all fall for it.

But if you think you’re unlikely to be fooled, you will be tempted instead to apply your intelligence to “figure out” how it happened. This means you can end up using considerable creativity and intelligence to help the psychic fool you by coming up with rationalisations for their “ability”.

And because you think you can’t be fooled, you also bring your intelligence to bear to defend the psychic’s claim of their powers. Smart people (or, those who think of themselves as smart) can become the biggest, most lucrative marks.

I want a trackpad /s

Are Tesla models the Musk equivalent of Heffner’s Playboy bunnies? /s

We don’t let our kids speak to strangers in the park unless we are in earshot.

They still would have complete privacy in face-to-face interactions with actual friends.

⏩

What about a system where the entire session is recorded in video format for the parent to review later?

ie Click bait (although a worthwhile story).

I refuse to click on any SubStack stories. That web site profiteers from Nazi content.

She knew the postcode. It was a security question. My response was cheeky.

I just want Swype to return. It got pulled out of Play and iOS stores in 2018. Swipe/glide keyboard input via gboard is crap in comparison.

Just today: they asked for [verification of] ID number, name, DOB, address.

But for the address they asked further…

AGENT: “…and the postcode please?”

ME: “Google it”

The agent must have seen the absurdity of the question and did not insist on a postcode.

Oh dear, I forgot the point of the article, sorry. The guy was pretending to be a police officer. Thank you everyone for being tolerant of me. I don’t know if I should delete my comment now or not.

OK but that would be entirely different security questions from the ones they ask clients.

I was talking about how frustrating it gets for clients, eg for social security I am a nominee for my Mother. I have to verify details of myself (since I am also on SS) then give them a password for my access to Mum, then (this is the stupid part) give them the details of Mum.

It is entirely redundant by the last stage and it may just be theatre or they may be doing it to piss people off so that they get angry and so the SS agent has an excuse to hang up. In Australia they are notorious for making things difficult and the subject of a Royal Commission which determined they are guilty of illegal shitfuckery (although I don’t think the RC used that term).

Maybe I am missing a joke, but why would a service provider need to jump through any security hoops to comply with a request from law enforcement?

Believe it or not, some people do work extra hard in order to ensure their descendants have an easy life. I’m not weighing in on whether that is wise or not but it is definitely a thing.

Speaking of Chutzpah…

“The Fellowship of the King” title is a combination of the titles of the first book in the LOTR trilogy “The Fellowship of the Ring” and the third book “The Return of the King”.

“The Two Trees” title is similar to the second book in the LOTR trilogy “The Two Towers”

The stalker probably assaulted them with a thumbs down on Twitter.

And now they will probably overcompensate with frustrating security theatre beyond sensible precautions.

George Takei
James Gleick
Ars Technica

If you saw a powerful but drunk person hit and run a child would you not report it to the police?

In the old days the powerful person would hire a private investigator to learn how to make your life misery to put you off testifying.

Nowadays they just need your internet history… unless you are fine with assholes getting away with killing kids of course.