Jimmycrackcrack @ Jimmycrackcrack @lemmy.ml Posts 57Comments 920Joined 2 yr. ago
Or to market paid privacy focussed products towards you lol.
"You can always choose not use the street, no one forced you to sign up for an outside account"
Yeh, it's not like virginity, the organisations chasing this data don't live entirely off of new additions to their databases, the data is valuable to them when it's a constant flow so if you are interested in guarding that data and stopping it from being shared too widely then there's never a point at which it's entirely too late. It is worth noting that it's near impossible to maintain the type of privacy you might have expected maybe in the 90s, early 2000s but, if you succeeded in reducing how much data you give away even to some limited extent then you are successfully starving those that seek that data of something valuable. Information about you that's years old is probably not worth very much. It all feeds in to the machinery of this surveillance economy so I'm sure it's useful to some extent, but that machinery seems to be endlessly thirsty so it obviously needs a continuous supply.
NES is a good one, it was juuust about part of my time in that a couple of people I rarely saw had one and I loved playing it with them when I did seem them, but really that's because I didn't at the time have a games machine or a computer so anything would have been good. I've played a few of the games and they were alright, pretty good. I got an original NES console with several games as an adult and was super excited because it's so classic and retro and I found that much as I love owning it, I really couldn't stand playing it for more than a few minutes. The games are just, kinda boring and they feel very, incomplete. They suffy some of the same problems as the Atari games I played just to see what the time period was like, those Atari ones in particular feel very unfinished, like someone thought it'd be interesting to try making a game, had one attempt, made something like a sort of prototype and then got bored and just shoved it on the market and moved on to a different hobby. The NES games weren't as bad as that, but there was a similar feel of lack of consideration for the actual player. To me, it the NES kind of represents when games were starting to get good, which I think would annoy a lot of people that were gamers for a long time before that, because it's always annoying when younger people make these proclamations totally ignorant of the time they're speaking about, but in my head at least that's what the NES generation represents. It's the starting point of what was to come, with some flashes of brilliance and a lot of meh and even the really good bits aren't as good as their later more refined iterations.
Yeh, this is a weird question. Kid has to know he's going to be accepted by his own Dad and still be able to make up their own mind on things. Hopefully when they've more fully developed they might sway a different way but acceptance from their Dad shouldn't really be conditional upon it.
But when he took the red pill he was relegated to eating a bowl of snot as his only food and living in a hellscape and had to fight a never-ending war whilst still having to regularly go back in to the matrix he was supposedly escaping. I mean I guess, great, for humanity but it doesn't make picking Linux sound like a great time if you're going to use that analogy.
Sounds romantically intended with some really fucked up and distorted ideas mixed in. I'll take as given that she doesn't actually hold any of the racism she expressed as sincere beliefs. Part of you twigged that though she seemed to be trying to be nice in a really weird way, something seemed off and it is a bit off. If you imagine she mailed you a knife and a key to her house and said now you have the power to attack me and I'm vulnerable you'd probably see much more clearly and obviously how unromantic and off-putting and psychotic that is despite following a very similar logic.
In both these scenarios she's putting her life in your hands to demonstrate trust, but there's an implicit suggestion there that you would or could ever do something like that and only don't because of your undying devotion. There's a kind of twisted view of humanity there that that ruining someone's life on purpose with kompromat is something people generally do to one another but for the power love to zovercome it. It's sort of a red flag that she might think that way but really you know her better than any of us and also whether you think she's good for you. That she decided this would be a good idea and a nice birthday gift is disturbing enough that it's probably worth bringing up though. I think if it was me I'd probably express appreciation for the sentiment but also delete the video and tell them I had done so. Unfortunately you could never prove that you have deleted it so her messed up little game will always work in the manner that she intended but the extent to which this is something to worry about long term is something you can evaluate from her reaction to this news and your explanation of why it didn't feel right. Sometimes people do dumb shit, especially when they think they've spotted an opportunity for comedy and can't see their actions in a different light until after they've done the stupid thing. There's a chance here for this stupid thing to be a memory between just the two of you that neither of you has to worry about again so long as you point out that it wasn't as romantic as she thought it was and also delete whatever email or communication was used to send the video plus the video itself. If she's able to feel a bit embarrassed and move on you're probably fine, if she digs in and gets offended and tries to play similar fucked up games, then you might want to consider getting out before things escalate.
Economics really isn't my strong suit so the fact that the outcome is surprising or confusing to me isn't entirely unexpected but I have to say that outcome is actually kind of surprising. I would have thought the theory for how the tariff was supposed to work was that the 20% increase in price seen on the ground for foreign made washing machines owing to the cost of the tariff being passed on to the consumer would mean that the domestic producer of washing machines could expect to look more attractive on the shelf than the foreign made ones for being cheaper. The domestic manufacturer could also afford to be cheaper in a way that's easy for them to achieve because they don't face the artificial increase in the cost of making and selling their washing machines. This would mean they had the opportunity to sell more of them than their foreign competitors resulting in higher profits. If they saw it as an opportunity to raise prices by 20% without being punished by their competitors, wouldn't that eliminates their natural advantage? Seems they'd be leaving money on the table. I would have thought the more likely outcome you'd see would be the domestic company essentially raise prices by something more like 19% so that they still get to profiteer from the chance to raise prices without penalty in the marketplace and unlike their competitors keep that as profit rather than put it towards paying tarrifs, but still be cheapest on the market meaning increased sales. You'd see a double benefit from their perspective. I mean that would still completely suck, everyone would be paying 19% more than when they started, but you'd think you'd see some of the intended desireable effects of the tariff in this one simple example of the washing machines, ignoring other factors.
Do you ever find that sometimes when you intervene in to other people's conversations to pull out some of your best absolute cracker lines like "why don't you google that?" that people just don't react properly at all? Like you'd expect an appropriate response like some light cheering and maybe lifting you up on their shoulders and handing you a medal and at least a couple of trophies. You know, something befitting of your incisive and insightful contributions, and instead they just kinda stop talking to you? That's so weird huh?
Is it true they can hold on to a charge for decades? I was told that but it seemed unlikely.
You deadly seriously didn't know if they were talking about the Pacific Ocean? In a post about someone who has trouble speaking clearly, in a reply clearly establishing you were aware there were writing errors, zeroing in on a word well known to be accidentally substituted for the word "specifically" by some speakers. You deadly seriously didn't know?
Unfortunately you just cannot simply take English as it's spoken in your country and assume it will apply universally and without change across all English speaking countries even as you and I now mostly successfully converse in English. The roots of words can be interesting and sometimes informative to know but it's not the whole story and ignoring actual usage will never garner a true understanding. It sounds like it's pretty important avoid the word in the US, but not so in Australia. It's not totally neutral here, it's still swearing and you won't hear a school teacher saying it to children, but it's also not coming from the same place in terms of meaning as in the US or UK for example. Sometimes it's an insult, essentially meaning a bad or objectionable person, sometimes it's used in much the same way as "mate", other times it can simply mean "person/people". Much like English itself, context is important and you have to know the background and contextual cues to understand which meaning to take.
You should come over here some time, you might like it, the weather is nice, we share a lot in common with the US, so you'd feel right at home but there's just enough interesting differences to be exotic and provide opportunities to learn something about the world you didn't know before. I can tell you're well meaning and I think people will probably appreciate that too.
It's about cultural context, c*nt is deployed in reference both to men and women in Australia
Hanging out for the next one. Dude's so funny.
I don't know I thought it was pretty good.
I don't, in general make this same bargain, and I'm not more than happy to give my data, and thus sacrifice my privacy. However, I have had to reckon, and I think many of those who value privacy must too, with the fact that it isn't inherently valued by everyone, that simply adequately communicating this in a way that's better understood won't translate to people suddenly realising what they're giving up. We aren't always simply one great analogy away from changing every person's world view and likely many have come to their view from a place at least as well informed as those of us who jealously guard our privacy. I also have to reckon with the fact that to some extent, my own desire to protect my privacy is at least not fully explainable by logic and rationalism, especially in light of how difficult it is to protect and how easy it is to have unwittingly ceded it. You might call that defeatism, and to simply conclude "well I lost some privacy, so I might as well give it up completely" is accepting defeat, again not something I'm yet prepared to do, but it is also perhaps important to acknowledge and factor present realities in to one's thinking. It might sound defeatist to point out an enemy's big guns pointed toward you from all sides, but it's insane to ignore them. That quote that you've produced, while antithetical to my thinking, really isn't irrational or illogical, and only defeatist if you were onboard with fighting to begin with. If you do not value your privacy and you get something useful in exchange for its sacrifice then it would seem obvious to part with it gladly and it's difficult to offer a rational reason why someone shouldn't. My strongest motivation for protecting it is more idealistic than personal and has more to do with a kind of slippery slope argument and a concern for hypothetical power grabbing and eroding of our rights and autonomy. I like to think that's reason enough, but at least right now, for almost everyone, none of those concerns represent clear nor present dangers and I can't prove it definitely will become such in future though I certainly feel like it has accelerated trends firmly in the direction of my fears.
Given the context of the post, that they're asking for help, picking on this seems needless and unsympathetic. Given their own acknowledged problems with speech I don't see why making a joke about their writing would seem helpful or appropriate.
Why does the scale stop on the side after the string? I would have thought you measured what you were slicing by having the scale start after the string and pushing the cheese along the scale over the indent to the length you want and then slicing. Putting it only on the left seems weirdly unhelpful. It'd just tell you what length something was before you sliced it.
I'm sure they all met her, they work together.