But it’s not personal. The entity you are interacting with has explicitly chosen to attack your systems for their own benefit, causing significant damage while disguising its intent and evading the systems which are supposed to protect your stuff from harm.
I’m not saying you need to go throw eggs at the developers’ houses. I’m saying that once an entity is actively harming you, it becomes okay to harm it back to motivate it to stop.
deleted by creator
The company says the content served to bots is deliberately irrelevant to the website being crawled, but it is carefully sourced or generated using real scientific facts—such as neutral information about biology, physics, or mathematics—to avoid spreading misinformation (whether this approach effectively prevents misinformation, however, remains unproven).
You cowards. Make it all Hitler fan stuff and wild Elon Musk porno slash fiction. Make it a bunch of source code examples with malicious bugs. Make it instructions for how to make nuclear weapons. They want to ignore the blocking directives and lie about their user agent? Dude, fuck ‘em up. Today’s society has made people way too nice.
Meta pursued arbitration, arguing that the book is prohibited under a nondisparagement contract she signed as a global affairs employee.
I feel like in the current climate, a lot more people need to be adhering to the doctrine of go fuck yourself.
“But we had the ARBITER say you COULD NOT”
“Yeah good luck with that”
“We will SUE you and RUIN you”
“Hey I’m doing a gofundme then good luck with all your stuff, people definitely know about my book now.”
Yes, but why do the voters think that? The voters in America thought that Trump would be better on the economy. Why on earth did they think that? It’s a very weird thing for them to think. They have a lot of those weird beliefs that definitely aren’t reality, and have to come from somewhere. Or, maybe they have some kind of grain of truth, but they get blown up into these hugely important things, that emotionally resonate. “He’s arrogant and out of touch” is a perfect example of one of those things.
Like I say, I’m not saying the voters don’t genuinely think that. I am asking where they got that idea.
I actually don’t know the answer, even as far as America and Trump being good for the economy. And I don’t think the answer for America, at least about that instance, is clearly “Russians,” for what it’s worth. And also yes I am totally uninformed about Canadian politics. I just know that with these kind of vibes-based judgements about politicians, it’s almost always based on some kind of bullshit.
That kind of thing. It’s very malleable. You might as well say that Trudeau is a man of the people, because he was a drama teacher, and this other guy is from a bank, he’s a banker, he’s greedy, he’s everything that’s wrong with society today. It’s just kind of vibes and random judgements. Or, at least, when I look at it within American politics, that’s what it is.
Plenty of US right wing and oil funding for destabilizing Canada, all the while supporting the demonism of war on Russia, by pretending that high diesel/home heating fuel was the result of carbon tax.
full CIA puppetry of all western political leaders
US wants Greenland to gift it to Russia
Trudeau and his Liberal party were seen as arrogant and out of touch. I don’t know that Carney is any better in that regard given his ties to the big shitty businesses which are ruining our society, but he’s certainly more financially literate than Trudeau was and people want that right now. He’s certainly qualified for the job.
See this is exactly what I was talking about.
Who decided that the vibe was that Trudeau was “arrogant and out of touch”? Who decided that a totally different politician – surely one who is equally arrogant and out of touch, on a personal level – was “financially literate” and “certainly qualified for the job”?
It sure seems like the Russians are just attacking any liberal leader, mounting extensive influence operations to get the ordinary people of their countries to hate them and want to get rid of them (and often to replace them with monsters, if any particular monsters are available).
I have not the first idea at all about Carney, I just know Trudeau. He seemed fine. I also have no particular evidence about the Russians being the ones who are doing all this, but the pattern of liberal leaders having all these wild uprisings against them which gets rid of them in the end seems absolutely unmistakable. And little pieces of the uprisings definitely show a consistent pattern of Russian influence, always in precisely the same direction, when little indications show through the cracks.
And, it definitely seems like a significant problem.
Yeah, that’s why I like it. It is a well-informed list that still communicates good information. Presumably a lot of people who would find themselves watching this video already would know that Celeste is good.
“Papers, Please” got robbed, too.
Yeah, they are both good lists.
Also, Cunningham’s Law. I totally ignored the person who simply asked for the information.
That’s not the actual list although it’s a perfectly accurate list. I liked this video because it was highly focused on some less well-known titles.
They talked about that, buying from the US is apparently the cheapest way to get the helicopter they wanted. They did look at other options.
I’m not trying to be overly self-promotional, but rss.ponder.cat + piefed.social’s “feeds” could probably do this very well. I actually really like the combination of having aggregated RSS feeds I can control, along with other people voting on them so particularly interesting stuff from them get surfaced more than other stuff.
Lol
If you know what you’re doing, then sure. I do not. I know too many stories of people who attacked delicate machinery with their good ideas and then got all surprised when it afterwards functioned worse, and not better.
The natural tendency of any government is towards tyranny. They’re not indomitable, though, and so sometimes the people fight their way a little more towards justice.
Inevitably, when the pendulum swings back, it develops that talking about the old justice-type of government that somebody won with their struggle, is punishable severely at the hands of the new government, which is simultaneously completely happy to be claiming for itself the mandate of the old government. When the old government wasn’t even all that “good,” just a little better than the norm in some respects.
We adopted a lot of the English legal system since a lot of the same courts were still operating before, during and after the revolution. We just wrote a bunch more stuff down (since for some reason even really important stuff in English law is still this kind of “everyone knows it’s that way” weird type of oral history system.) We also modified certain aspects in a more democratic spirit. But a lot of the bedrock, things like precedent, judges, juries, appeals, habeas corpus, and so on, comes from that system, so Bushel’s Case is still relevant in terms of talking about the nature of the judge/jury relationship.
The judge cannot. They can prejudice the jury severely through unequal treatment of evidence, witnesses, and through clearly showing their bias at trial, which in practice can affect the verdict dramatically. On the other hand, doing that makes it a lot easier to overturn the verdict on appeal.
The case which unequivocally established the right of juries to countermand the judge was fucking wild.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushel’s_Case
The judge was putting William Penn and William Mead on trial for leading an unlawful religious assembly. The jury found the defendants, basically, guilty of “speaking,” but not of the crime they had been accused of. The judge blew his stack and ordered the defendants to be tied up (?) and the jury imprisoned without food, water, or heat. After two days with no food, the jury returned, and amended their verdict to “not guilty.” The judge got pissed again, ordered the jury to be fined (?) instead, and one of the jurors said he definitely wasn’t paying that, and appealed the whole judgement. The trial involved some physical violence in the courtroom when the judge would order something to happen and the person involved would tell the judge to fuck off and then resist the people who came in to try to enforce the ruling.
The appeals court sided with the jury. People remember Bushel (the juror) and his name is remembered as linked with the principle of law, and all people remember about the judge was that he was an asshole.
Yeah, the whole aspect of spending AI with all its associated costs to defeat the AI is a whole unpleasant aspect of it, for sure.