my_hat_stinks

But 'cold' and 'heated' are bad. People are weird about temperature.

Good luck remembering them all, also change them all every 30 days, so here are my secrets.

Password expiry hasn't been considered best practice for a long time (must be at least a decade now?) largely because of the other points you mentioned; it leads to weak easily memorable passwords written somewhere easily accessible. Even when it was considered good 30 days would have been an unusually short time.

Current advice is to change passwords whenever there's a chance it's been compromised, not on a schedule.

In place of cookies, Google has introduced a new set of tools that makes the Chrome browser itself keep tabs on what you’re doing online.

So instead of cookies which can be blocked or deleted relatively simply there's spyware baked directly into the browser. How is this an improvement for the user?

with extras like [..] no lockscreen ads

What the fuck? Why is that an extra not just the default? It's great that this product isn't riddled with ads, but that's like saying it's great a burger is not made of human shit; it's crazy that anyone would tolerate a shit-burger in the first place.

Maybe ads are normal in the e-reader space for some reason, but that's just insane to me.

You're not wrong, but the first words are literally "Just over a decade ago". It's not a news article, it's the story of the research in 2013 which revealed bitcoin isn't anonymous.

That's an odd complaint. If they didn't ask for donations, donations would be a lower % of their income. How many donations do you need before you can ask for donations?

Public transport too. It really seems like every time a public service is privatised it goes to shit, almost as if for-profit motives aren't aligned to public interest.

Undertale music publisher issues copyright strikes against reuploads and remixes of the music and takes down an Undertale fangame for using Undertale music; Toby Fox, creator of the Undertale, disagrees with publisher.

There's a ton of standard youtuber drama and rage bait thrown in to pad out the video, but that's the gist.

My gut reaction is that this won't work long-term. Users on youtube often point to specific timestamps in a video in comments or link to specific timestamps when sharing videos, meaning there needs to be some way to identify the timestamp excluding ads. And if there's a way to do that there's a way to detect ads.

Of course, there's always the chance they just scrap these features despite how useful they are and how commonly they're used; they've done similar before.

Have you considered events from their perspective? From what you've described, they were told to wait until a notification was sent, then they were given a notification with the instruction "send this". If it was me my first thought would absolutely be that that's the notification to be sent, the only reason I'd hesitate is because those sort of communications are well outside my job description.

The reason they sent the product afterwards is obvious; they were told to send them after the notification was sent, and they had sent the notification.

From what you've described, you are communicating incredibly poorly then blaming your workers for misunderstanding.

I still can't wrap my head around the fact there's a group who intentionally named themselves "proud boys" which somehow isn't a group for openly gay men. If they weren't a neo-fascist terrorist organisation I'd think the whole thing was a joke.

Ctrl+Shift+V pastes without formatting.

That's nonsense. If I were to say you're spreading Nazi propaganda but I refuse to show anyone for fear of spreading hate, should people believe me?

If you actually were a Nazi would it be better for me to expose you with proof or would it be better to make unsubstantiated claims with plenty of room for doubt?

This argument has never made sense simply because of the fact that singular they/them has been in use for literally centuries. It's even reasonable to say it's always been in use considering singular they/them was in use in the 14th century and modern English formed around 14-17th. I can guarantee you have never batted an eye when you heard something like "someone called but they didn't leave a message".

There are only two differences with recent usage: people are less likely to assume genders so use they/them more freely; and people identifying specifically as they/them. The words themselves haven't really changed, they're just more common now. Opposition to singular they/them is almost entirely political.

Where I am most people are happy to drink the tap water, and we're all oddly proud of it. Which is fair, it's great water. Very soft too, I remember seeing ads on TV for products to remove limescale but that doesn't really happen here much. I find it a little odd that some places' tap water is so full of impurities that it leaves mineral deposits on their appliances.

Come to Scotland, try our tap water!

It's not illegal to pay for a service you don't use or only partly use, provided the service itself isn't illegal. It's not unethical either; you paid the full price requested by the airline.

The airline may cancel your return ticket and blacklist you, leaving you stranded. Definitely unethical, but since it's legal corporations aren't too worried about that part.

You're absolutely right, I can't think of a single point in history where there was mass persecution of any particular group by a government which might have been far more efficient of they had a handy database of every citizens DNA. Just never happens, not once in all of history. There's definitely no shining example less than a century ago.

You're not really arguing against the whole crowd there, a lot of people (wrongly) hold the same opinion. The problem is thinking of the door swap as an independent event when it's not; the result is directly related to the original choice of door. If we label the doors A, B, and C and put the prize behind door A, here's the possible options:

Initial Choice A
- Stick: win
- Swap: lose

Initial Choice B:
- Stick: lose
- Swap: win

Initial Choice C:
- Stick: lose
- Swap: win

Two out of three times swapping wins.

Edit: I see you added a table to your comment, but you're miscounting pretty badly there. You're giving double weight to initial choice being correct.

It is technically true that when you pick A the presenter can open either B or C, but then you need to account for that in your odds; it's 50% either way so the win/loss rate is halved. In other words:

Initial Choice A - 33%
- Presenter opens B - 50%
   - Stick: win (16.5%)
   - Swap: lose (16.5%)
- Presenter opens C - 50%
   - Stick: win (16.5%)
   - Swap: lose (16.5%)

Initial Choice B - 33%
- Presenter opens C - 100%
   - Stick: lose (33%)
   - Swap: win (33%)

Initial Choice C - 33%
- Presenter opens B - 100%
   - Stick: lose (33%)
   - Swap: win (33%)

As shown, including which door the presenter opens does not affect the odds. When sticking, you win (16.5% + 16.5% = 33%) and lose (33% + 33% = 66%), when swapping you win (33% + 33% = 66%) and lose (16.5% + 16.5% = 33%).

Everything a computer does uses resources so every extension will have some performance impact, though you usually won't notice the difference from any one extension. As a general rule of thumb, the more an extension does the more resources it needs and so the bigger the impact. Some extensions free up additional resources (eg by blocking ads or trackers) which may also result in a net performance gain dependant on the page you're viewing.

A large extension on disk doesn't necessarily use more memory and CPU time than a small one, but it is more likely to. The only reliable way to tell which extensions are resource hogs is by benchmarking them.

Disabling extensions not in use is a good idea, though personally I'd uninstall them instead.

Personally I don't see that as a good thing. Reddit had a thriving community of active art sharing subrrddits, Lemmy only has a few barely active art coms and instead floods All with ai-generated images.

Urine isn't sterile. While it's true that paper towels are better than dryers, drying your hands (even with a dryer) is better than not drying. Washing your hands is, obviously, better than not washing your hands.

If you don't wash your hands you're already in the worst case. It makes no sense to complain about the methods of drying available.

A keyboard without tactile feedback is objectively worse than a keyboard with tactile feedback, excluding other factors.

I've never had a physical keyboard lag out then send an entirely different keystroke because it thought I held a button, or send a single keystroke because I was typing too quickly.

I've never had to wait a moment for a physical keyboard to show up after selecting a text box.

I've never had the entire layout of a page shift to make room for a physical keyboard whenever I select or deselect a text box.

I've never had a physical keyboard prevent me from using the number pad and force me to use the full keyboard (or worse, vice versa) because of an improperly configured input box.

The way I see it there are exactly two real benefits to integrating a software keyboard into a touchscreen: reduced physical complexity (the entire device is essentially just one screen), and easier access to emoji. A touchscreen keyboard performs far worse as a keyboard. It's a valid trade-off for a small mobile device, but it's not objectively better.

Your mistake there is thinking the stock market has to make sense. For instance, mass layoffs are a huge red flag that a company is failing and in any sane world would instantly tank the value. The stock market instead likes layoffs because it's not at all interested in what the company actually does, so spending a little less in the short term to produce a lot less long term is a good thing.

Likely because it's blatant misinformation and very spammy. Licences permit additional use, they do not restrict use beyond what copyright already does. I imagine there'd be fewer downvotes if they didn't incorrectly claim licencing their content was somehow anti-AI. Still spammy and pointless, but at least not misinformation.

Imagine if someone ended every comment with "I DO NOT GRANT PERMISSION TO LAW ENFORCEMENT TO READ THIS COMMENT. ANY USE OF THIS COMMENT BY LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR ANY REASON IS ILLEGAL. THIS COMMENT CANNOT BE USED AS EVIDENCE AGAINST ANY NON-LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONS IN RELATION TO ANY CRIME."

A bit silly, no?

Is it really, though? Even if karma wasn't ridiculously easy to get in the first place, Reddit has karma sharing communities for the sole purpose of users and bots upvoting each other to get around karma restrictions.

If someone said they were concerned about their sugar intake would you tell them to just stop eating entirely? It's possible to take steps towards privacy-friendly services without cutting yourself off from the modern world in the same way as you can cut back on sugar and still eat food.

You absolutely do not need to "burn all your devices" to improve your privacy, suggesting so is unhelpful at best.

There's definitely some issues that jump out to me on first read.

1. I'm not sure about "indivisible". An area should be able to self-govern if desired. More detail needed.
2. Awful. Removing people's voting rights in general is bad, and something as nebulous as "a criminal offence" is incredibly easy to abuse. Are people no longer citizens if they steal a loaf of bread? Also, voting age here is 16/18.
4. No. Guns are incredibly rare where I am. I'd rather not have one, and I'd prefer not to risk getting shot every time some asshole on the street gets mad.
7. Limiting land to a single use is generally not a great idea. What if for instance you have too much agricultural land and not enough housing?
10. A central state-owned bank isn't a bad idea, but abolishing all non-state banks is iffy. Should the government really have so much direct control over everyone's finances?
12. Your salary should not be based on the amount of unprotected sex you have. That's just silly. Other support should be available for those who need it.

Something that is redundant is not needed, it's a descriptive term. Layoff is a relatively recent US euphemism meaning relax or rest which became associated with non-working periods for seasonal work then evolved to cover redundancies. The US term is the weird one here.

The name is an analogy, neural networks do not work in the same way as biological neurons. They were designed by computer scientists, not biologists.

RAM is so far removed from biological short term memory both in how it works and how it's used that the comparison doesn't even make sense. The only similarity is that they're short term information/data stores, so it's equally valid to compare them to a drawing in the sand of a beach.

What a ridiculous argument. They're not saying big tech companies are necessarily as abusive as those other organisations, they're saying people might want to avoid them in the same way.

By contrast your comment, intentionally or otherwise, suggests the only valid reason to avoid interacting with an organisation is if you were literally raped by them. Now that is fucked up.

Strongly disagree. While a lot of work does go on to art assets which should be simpler to migrate, the code is absolutely what makes the game. There are tons of very successful games with low quality or stock assets, there are very few popular games with broken code.

Even then, it's still a lot of effort to check every asset you're using to ensure they work as expected in your new engine.

It's a bit of a non-sequitur though, the context was denying service to an ally not cutting off existing service to Crimea. It's like if someone asked "Have you ever shaken a baby" and you respond "I have never kicked this baby!". Sure, it's good that you haven't kicked a baby, but that's just not the question.

I'm not sure how sound that reasoning is, it's difficult to use intuition to determine whether one infinite set is bigger than another. Infinity is weird.

Say for instance you have two infinite sets: a set of all positive integers (1, 2, 3...) and a set of all positive multiples of 5 (5, 10, 15...). Intuitively you might assume the first set is bigger, after all it has five times as many values, right? But that's not actually the case, both sets are actually exactly the same size. If you take the first set and multiply every value by 5 you have the second set, no need to add or remove any values. Likewise, dividing every value in the second set gives you the first set again. There is no value in one set that can't be directly mapped to a unique value in the other, therefore both sets must be the same size. Pick any random number and it's 5 times as likely to be in the first set than the second, but there are not 5 times as many values in the first set.

With infinitely many universes one particular state being a few times more or less likely doesn't necessarily matter, there can still be as many universes with you as without.

Ironic, considering you are undoubtedly not a lawyer and have evidently never even dealt with copyright issues.

CC licences are handy copyleft licences to allow others to use your work with minimal effort. Using them to restrict what others can do is a fundamental misunderstanding of how copyright works. If you want to restrict others' use of your work copyright already handles that, a licence can only be more permissive than default copyright law. You can sign a contract with another party if you want to further restrict their use of your work, but you'll generally also have to give them something in return for the contract to be valid (known as "consideration"). If you wish to do so you can include a copyright notice (eg "Copyright (c) 2024 onlinepersona. All rights reserved.") but that hasn't been a requirement for a long time.

I'd say you're very underpaid, I'm making about 50% more than that in a fully remote UK-based mid-level position. You should start looking for a new job, even if it's just as leverage to get paid fairly at your current place.

Not necessarily, as it gets faster the latency between your local and remote machines becomes a bigger fraction of the time taken to process anything. If your local machine processes in 50ms and the remote machine in 5s, a latency of just 45ms would make your machine faster.

Running locally also cuts out a lot of potential security issues inherent to sending data over a network, and not sending your data to a third party is a bonus too.

Anything we've had before now wasn't AI.

This claim doesn't work simply due to the fact AI is a very vague term which nobody agrees on. The broadest and most literal (and possibly oldest) definition is simply any inorganic emulation of intelligence. This includes if statements and even purely mechanical devices. The narrowest definition is a computer with human-like intelligence, which is why some people claim LLMs are not AI.

Saying LLMs work differently from older AI approaches is fair, saying older approaches are not AI but the latest one is is questionable.

Adding a CC link and falsely claiming it's an anti-AI licence is misinformation and undoubtedly does add confusion.

Probably not, I don't even drink cows milk any more. Not because I'm vegan or anything like that, just purely for practical reasons. Cow milk goes off at the drop of a hat but I always manage to get through all my oat milk or almond milk without it turning.

Having everything you want in one place isn't a monopoly unless everything you want is only in one place.

Streaming is on-demand TV sans ads, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there.