You’ll hear no arguments from me on that point, US tech companies are toxic af.

Good to know!

Maybe. They could also be doing things like paying attention to input cadence and typos/pre-send typo corrections to use as part of a fingerprint associated with the identifying information a user gives them when creating an account so that they can then attempt to detect the user elsewhere on the web whether they are using an identifying account or not.

This may be out of date, since it’s been a while since I last tested this, but: will Signal on desktop still store media in an easily accessible folder where the only security is the use of random strings to identify each individual media file with the file type extension deleted? So, for example, if you’ve had the desktop Signal client synced with your account for a period of time and have running conversations that include sensitive media, that media can be accessed and viewed without even opening the desktop app (which also, last I tested it, lacks most of the locking/security mechanisms found in the phone versions of Signal).

Most media viewers can open the files without the need for adding the file extension to the end of the filename, albeit you would be browsing the files in a pseudorandom fashion if you didn’t try to sort by date or size.

If the expensive clothes post is correct and the hostel photos aren’t just a random distraction because they can’t find any leads on the actual shooter, why isn’t the NYPD look into whether Josh Heuston (from Dune: Prophecy) has an alibi or not?

Downvoting to save words in your reply - nice. Have another upvote.

Your most recent reply actually conveys meaning/makes a specific versus broad point. To that point, I don’t necessarily think they were making a eugenics based argument (though I would agree with you in dismissing an argument based on that) since they didn’t explicitly state the reason for mentioning the movie was because they believe in some idea of politics being genetic versus simply being most effectively passed down via social means from one’s parents while living with them through adolescence. Call me crazy, but I think most of the folks posting here should be given the benefit of not assuming they’re talking about eugenics until they are explicitly promoting it versus something more widely accepted, such as the aforementioned idea that it’s highly likely that parents pass down their politics through social means to their children. I could, of course, be wrong and maybe they were intending to make a eugenics based argument, but they weren’t specific enough to divine that. All of that said, I should edit the phrasing in a sarcastic comment I made elsewhere about removing oneself from the gene pool being a bad strategy since I probably wasn’t clear enough to get across that I was using the very real right-wing perspective where they favor their “good genes” over others’ “genes” for added effect.

Your initial (decidedly vague) comment, as quoted, presents a false choice as if the person you were replying to was worrying about a future problem that is totally disconnected from the current topic of discussion, but they’re not and I don’t think the person you were replying to gave any reason for one to infer that they were ignoring the current issue in favor of some future issue. If they were talking about disconnected topics/problems then what you were saying would make more sense (or if you had been more specific, like in your followup, that would help too). It’s as if the person noticed a ceiling was leaking and exclaimed to someone suggesting to just put a bucket under it “Ignoring a leak is exactly how my neighbor ended up needing to replace their roof, I don’t think the bucket plan is a good plan in the long term!” and you were there to reply “Don’t tell them to worry about the roof, they need to fix the leak!” It’s not wrong, it just doesn’t really say anything or lead to further thought beyond the loop and comes across as a “calm down!”

Self-selective removal of oneself and those of probable left-leaning male partners from the gene pool* is certainly one strategy left-leaning women could try in the fight for a political environment where their rights are protected and progress further. Probably a terrible strategy, but certainly one that could be chosen.

I respect any individual’s bodily autonomy and am not trying to make a statement in favor of men having a right to access or anything like that. It’s just an illogical movement if the goal is a society that has more individuals likely to support women’s rights - the gamble that thirsty men of the left will somehow save the day or that it would affect men on the right is kind of silly unless we’re assuming that there is a statistically meaningful amount of (secretly) left leaning women out there choosing right wing men as partners. (I wonder if anyone has tried to focus a campaign on seeing if the latter group exists in a sizable amount and can be convinced to be vote left - somebody should look into that and see how it works out. /s)

It’s almost like 4B is something that the right wing would push to further their current advantage in household size in the US…

*I am not seriously implying politics are a matter of genetics (though parents commonly pass down their politics to children in their household via social means), but plenty of people on the right do believe in their own “good genes” versus the “bad genes” of the left and I’m leaning on their perspective for sarcastic effect here.

What do you mean? How can a movement originated in the famously socially progressive utopia of South Korea possibly be anything but good for the long term prosperity and happiness of left leaning women in the US? /s

I get your point, but I wouldn’t worry about what might happen in 20 years when what is currently happening is bad.

Ahh, the ol’ false bifurcation ostrich effect as a thought-terminating-looparoo.

We are living, this moment, in a great filter event. I truly believe that. Wanna know why we don’t see, hear other planet wide civilisations? Look around you. See where this leads. Connect the dots. “do your own research.” ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

My favorite people are the evangelical Christians that tacitly understand this point and want to accelerate things.

Let’s taste them.

MFW Trump Derangment Syndrome is real and it’s a prion disease.

Donald… Drumpf! Huehuehue! eyes roll backwards as they inhale their own flatulence

The best part is if you have Google Home/Nest products throughout your house and initiate a voice request you now have your phone using Gemini to answer and have the nearest speaker or display using Assistant to answer and they frequently hear eachother and take that as further input (having a stupid “conversation” with eachother). With Assistant as the default on a phone, the system knows what individual device it should reply to via proximity detection and you get a sane outcome. This happened at a friend’s house while I was visiting and they were frustrated until I had them switch their phone’s default voice assistant back to Assistant and set up a home screen shortcut to the web app version of Gemini in lieu of using the native Gemini app (because the native app doesn’t work unless you agree to set Gemini as the default and disable Assistant).

Missing features aside, the whole experience would feel way less schizophrenic if they only allowed you to enable Gemini on your phone if it also enabled it on each smart device in the household ecosystem via Home. Google (via what they tell journalists writing articles on the subject) acts like it’s a processing power issue with existing Home/Nest devices and the implication until very recently was that new hardware would need to roll out - that’s BS given that very little of Gemini’s functionality is being processed on device and that they’ve now said they’ll begin retroactively rolling out a beta of Gemini to older hardware in fall/winter. Google simply hasn’t felt like taking the time to write and push a code update to existing Home/Nest devices for a more cohesive experience.

I feel like every article out there is missing this and keeps blaming Windows Update vs an update pushed to a specific piece of software by a third-party developer. I get end-users not understanding how things work but tech writers should be more knowledgeable about the subject they write about for a living.

,

I got fooled (like a lot of people) in 2016 to vote 3rd party and we got trump.

So rare to see someone actually say these words outside of pointing the finger at others. Kudos.

That would certainly make his unlikely career trajectory (constant lateral moves upwards once sussed out as a fraud or just plain bad employee) make even more sense than the typical “rich dad ergo fail upward” explanation.

Now do Alan Dershowitz!

You have to tell them that you love them, everytime, or it’s not even close to a proper bye. That’s how you get an in with the HR folks really quickly so you know that they have your back. Work on easy mode, more or less. Like and subscribe for more social lifehacks.

Very cool, I’ll check that out. Thanks!

Intention doesn’t always carry over well via text, but going from “shocking” and “I guess…” to “Do you not understand…?” comes across as a bit condescending/aggressive. Perhaps you thought I was being hostile? Or, perhaps I’m misreading the intent.

At any rate, keeping in mind the things that don’t carry across over text, I wasn’t disagreeing with you and was merely speculating in a parallel fashion about those that don’t return and/or are deemed unacceptable defection by the leadership in Pyongyang. I haven’t picked over my initial comment but it’s possible that I put a period somewhere a question mark was supposed to go or something. Regardless, I apologize if I came across as trying to argue against what you were saying, it was not my intention. I don’t tend to process things in a strictly linear progression and that translates to words that come out sometimes a bit disordered seeming or perhaps seemingly lacking in explicit context where it might be needed to ensure clarity in what I’m saying.

To answer the question rather than treat it as rhetorical: It’s quite possible that I don’t know how North Korean defection usually works because I’m not North Korean nor a policy analyst/SME specializing in North Korea. I read the article and your comment and found myself speculating, given the situation and deepening ties with Russia (who are objectively experts at tracking down dissidents abroad) about what policy and procedures might be in place now the event of would-be permanent defectors that end up becoming anti-Pyongyang mouthpieces or are high rank enough to leak meaningful intel to an adversary (I doubt they are sending any such people to Ukraine). But, I’m not an expert, I’m just a person speculating and commenting because I enjoy doing so and seeing what others have to say (including you). Thanks for sharing the article, have a good one.