my_hat_stinks

What’s the end game for cancer?

There isn’t one, it doesn’t matter that the host dies eventually as long as they get to keep growing for now.

It’s so weird to me that there was once a “correct” hand for writing, people writing with their non-dominant hand would just be so messy. For some reason I have one really vivid memory of learning to write in school, it must have been the very first writing lesson we had. Everyone had a pencil on the desk in front of them then the teacher asked everyone to pick it up, then it was something along the lines of “the hand you just used to pick up the pencil is your writing hand, whenever you write you should use that hand”.

I remember being so anxious about that, what if I’d picked up the pencil with the wrong hand and I’m actually left-handed and forcing myself to write with the wrong hand? It definitely didn’t help that for the entirety of my school life after that my handwriting was awful, barely legible to me and completely incomprehensible to anyone else. In one maths lesson I was even shamed by the teacher in front of the entire class because my 4s and 9s looked too similar so she struggled to mark my work, that was very fun and definitely helped improve my handwriting (/s).

I really am right-handed, I’m just bad with a pencil. After school I went into software so I barely ever write on paper anyway.

I’m sure there was a point I was going to make with this story before I started writing it.

Just right click a link, it’s the option directly under copy link.

I leave on time, how is that an insult? I’d be much more insulted if someone asked me to work for them for free. That’s what unpaid overtime is.

it’s pretty shady to be looking for legal safe harbor for scammers who rob people all over the world every day.

This is an argument that happened entirely within your own head, not in this thread. I think I made it clear right from the start I’m against scammers and approve of (ethical) actions taken against them, but I’m also against people who dox, invade privacy, engage in vigilantism, and gain unauthorised access to other’s computer systems (particularly when it’s for profit and ego). These are not mutually exclusive, there is no disconnect there. I even gave an example of more appropriate actions to take against scammers, notably actions that are actually effective.

Criticism against “justice” porn is not remotely the same thing as condoning scammers. You’re arguing in bad faith and you know it.

This is very untrue and you definitely shouldn’t be giving out legal advice like this on topics you’re not knowledgeable on, but exactly which part is a crime and how criminal it is will depend on your local laws. Some such computer misuse laws are intentionally written very broadly with generic wording precisely so that edge cases such as unintentionally granting an unauthorised party access to a system does not clear them of wrongdoing when they do so.

As for how to tell which laws are relevant and whether you’ve breached them? Well, I’m sure the answer will shock you.

Accessing a system you’re not authorised to access, regardless of how that access was obtained, is generally not legal. The way to sort that out is, you guessed it, a trial.

That argument doesn’t work, all you’re doing is pointing out the issues with vigilantism. He’s also committing a crime, are the scammers now in the right too since they’re targeting a suspected criminal?

This is why trials exist.

I suggest you read the next few words in that sentence which you conveniently left out of your quote, might help clear up any confusion.

I’ll definitely be downvoted for this too but I completely agree. There’s a fine line between entertainment at scammers’ expense and vigilantism for views. Publicly spreading the faces of people you’re accusing of a crime without any sort of trial is definitely the latter and has little direct impact on shutting down these operations. This video screams ego trip.

I used to watch Kitboga and they were much more ethical (at least when I watched). They’d lean heavily into the entertainment side, waste a lot of the scammers’ time which they then couldn’t spend on actual victims, and report/shutdown accounts as they came up which actually does directly impact their operation. Your scam call center still works if one of your workers gets their face posted online, it doesn’t if you have no bank account.

There are currently 120 comments, of which I can see one person suggested “violent protest” and one person suggested “blood”. Most of the comments which give any suggestions say unionisation, protest, and reform. If you see those as inherently violent that says a lot more about you than it does the other commenters.

There’s a lot of replies here about why US citizens are in the situation they are but not how to fix it, which was the question you asked. You have two political parties in a first past the post system with largely similar corporate focussed policies, people primarily vote against a party rather than for one that represents them. If you really want to change things you’ll need to overhaul your voting system to break up your two party system and encourage competition from parties that actually represent what people want.

Unfortunately there is no safe and easy way to do this; it means the two parties in power giving up that power which they will not do willingly. You’ll need large scale consistent and actually disruptive protests, ie not just meeting up for a day then returning to life as nornal, but the US has a history of responding to protests the same way they do everything; with violence.

So more practically, you can contact your representative at the appropriate level of government and hope they don’t completely ignore you this time.

It’s possible to factually accurate with heavy bias, but since that would require selective reporting to enforce a single worldview I wouldn’t consider that “highly trustworthy”.

Consider the following hypothetical headlines:
“Teen Killed by Islamic Group During Shooting”
“Terrorist Shooting at Mosque, 20 Dead”

Both are technically factually accurate ways to describe a hypothetical scenario where a teen shoots up a place of worship before being stopped by one of the victims, but they both paint very different pictures. Would you consider both sources “highly trustworthy”?

Sounds like snake oil. Their website says you need to sip water through their straw for 3 seconds two/three times, then repeat those 3 sips up to 2 more times so that puts the effectiveness at somewhere around that of pretty much any other free home remedy. The way those instructions are written seems like it’s meant to intentionally obfuscate that fact too, it’s incredibly unnatural to say “do this thing two to three times, up to three times”.

Bit of a misleading title, I’ve not watched the video but based on the video description and article they cite (also written by them, I think?) it should read “95% of Deaths from Extremism [in the past decade] in the U.S. are [Committed by] Far-Right”. The title as it is now suggests 95% of people killed were far-right, not that 95% of people killed were killed by far right.

Personally I’d swap “are” for “were” too. Present tense is a bit of an odd choice since it’s data from the past, for obvious reasons.

UK is under BST (UTC+1) for half the year but people are usually just taught that the UK is GMT (UTC+0) which is based in the time in Greenwich, withought mentioning DST. I suppose it’s also possible everyone is taught BST and just forgets about it because daylight savings sucks, but either way most people seem to think GMT and UK time are the same thing.

This means you’ll get people asking for GMT times when they want BST or UK local time.

According to this list it was used figuratively by Jane Austen, who I believe died more than 200 years ago. That page also claims the earliest known use is 1769, so it’s probably less than 300 years in writing? It’s moot either way, if you’re going for an etymological argument you could go further and say literally should mean anything to do with letters or writing, from the original Latin literalis/litteralis “of or belonging to letters or writing”.

Hard disagree; it’s not a useful comment precisely because it’s prescriptivism. It’s suggesting people are incorrect because they’re using a commonly accepted meaning of a word, that’s just not how language works.

Edit: Perhaps I should be clearer. The “less vs fewer” rule was invented roughly 200 years ago and doesn’t actually hold true, “less” has been used this way for far longer. It’s the epitome of “I want English to work this way, fuck everyone else”.

Language is defined by how it’s used, if it’s common for people to say “less” then that is correct. Trying to define the only “correct” usage counter to how people actually use the language is prescriptivism, which rarely changes how people actually speak. The only real use of prescriptivism is elitism.

You clearly understood what was said, you just wanted to announce you’re “better” at English.

It’s well outside my field so I’m definitely not qualified to answer that, but the trials seem to be building on this study so that might give more insight.