FauxLiving @ FauxLiving @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

831

Joined

5 mo. ago

It's safest to assume that, if you're posting on public social media, that your words will eventually be linked to your physical person.

When you're talking about an entity like the US Government, it will have a lot of tools to de-anonymize you (See: Snowden).

It is safest for the average person to just assume that everything you're posting on social media has your real-life name attached to it and that a federal law enforcement agent is reading what you post.

VPNs don't help you from being browser fingerprinted or from zero-day exploits or any number of other attack types that can de-anonymize you. The Internet isn't anonymous and hasn't been for over a decade.

So brave

-Written on a public social media website

Eventually people will become media savvy enough to recognize weasel words. In case you're not:

'Canada is considering joining the US' is not wrong, it's just misleading.

The reading that most people will take from it is "Cananda is considering joining the US and that consideration is leading them to join the US" as this is generally how 'considering' is used in English.

But, it isn't technically untrue. The 'Canada should join the US' topic has been a pretty hot topic in Canada. Overwhelmingly people are against it, but you can't be against something without considering it.

'Considering' is a weasel word that allows for people to imply one thing without technically lying.

You'll also see 'after' used a lot as a weasel word.

"Stock prices fall after oil futures increase" implies a causal link (i.e. that oil futures rising caused stock prices to fall) when, technically, it only states a temporal link: Oil Futures rose and then 24 hours later Stock prices fell. So stock prices fell after oil futures increased.

It's just as technically correct to write "Stock prices rise after local farmer's prized cow gives birth". Sure, those are two things that happened and the sentence is describing the correct order of things but it implies that these two events are linked in some way.

Hopefully this makes you one of today's lucky 10,000

We're just waiting for the Rust re-write

Does Bazzite have a new enough KDE Plasma and Wayland to do Wayland HDR? (works in GE-Proton10-1+)

Oh you're right, it was his deep and enduring relationship with Donald Trump, as we all know they're BFFs, and not the $250 million dollars he donated.

Anti-AI people attempting to understand subtext:

The order is the fiddly bit

Yeah, that's why Elon Musk is well known for his ability to form and maintain many meaningful relationships...

One of the things I liked about Blizzard was that they never tried to use fondant. It was all buttercream...

Until Activision made them start mixing fiberglass into the frosting to cut costs

You release the bird from the cage to kill the troll, or maybe I'm thinking Adventure

I've been keeping Windows to do VR, I didn't realize it was working on Linux too. Index, btw

INVLPGB for broadcast TLB invalidation

We're training him wrong on purpose

There's a demo as well, if you just wanted to take a look.

I've been running the Windows version in WINE but the flatpak may be the way to go for ease of use

WintergamingTV on YT is also really good content.

        Person A: The Police and prisons should be abolished.


  

This is a person making a point. What they're talking about is pretty obvious from the text.

        Person B: "If you’re making wild suggestions, you should probably care about the effects it will have"


  

This is a person making an implication. They never define what 'the effects' are, they simply hanging an implication. What they mean is left up to the imagination of the reader.

        Person B again: "You’re either being hyperbolic or you’re willfully ignorant about what would happen if we did that, neither of which help your case"


  

Once again, they're not actually saying anything. They're not saying "what would happen if we did that" they're implying the the Person A is hyperbolic or willfully ignorant for believing... something. Something that they won't actually define.

Again, this isn't a point, this is the person implying something but never actually saying what it is.

This is a shitty conversational tactic where the person never has to take a position that can be argued against but can appear, to the ignorant, as if they are actually saying something cynical and intelligent.

I'm replying to the most obvious reading of the implication which is "If you abolish the police and prisons then there will just be criminals everywhere".

But, because of this shitty conversational tactic, of not actually stating their position, Person B can simply come back and say "Oh I didn't mean that" and move the goalposts elsewhere.

Why should this person need to use their imagination to legitimize someone else’s argument, especially one so absurd? OP should make their own argument.

It is that person who's arguments are left to the imagination. Since they never actually say what they mean.

The first person in the conversion was pretty explicit about their position.

Your failure to imagine a successful alternative doesn't mean that the person you're talking to is ignorant.

Your imagination seems to only go as far as 'the prison doors open and anarchy occurs'. There are many alternatives to changing people's behavior that isn't simply locking them into boxes for decades at a time.

Nobody is saying that justice shouldn't be done, only that the current system is not just and doesn't improve the people that are put into it.