Kinglink @ Kinglink @lemmy.world

Posts

6

Comments

280

Joined

2 yr. ago

I was more making a joke.

I'm sure we know the truth, there's supposed to be a page that's fully redacted from a couple days before. Wonder why that's never been shown if there's nothing to hide. Then again there's knowing what happened, and having proof of it.

There's certain secrets which can never be revealed.

Imagine if America somehow caused the death of Queen Elizabeth ( as far as I know there's no evidence of this just an example.) It would take centuries for it be ok to reveal this with out ruining American English relations. This is intended as just a thought experiment to see how bad a country would take it.

And if you think "Nah they don't have anything that bad." The way America has fucked over the world with it's KNOWN foreign policy... there's 0 chance that we don't have many many many skeletons in our closet. I guarantee we've assassinated people. Potentially Leaders (no matter what Carter said). I guarantee we've interfered with elections, or even fully rigged elections. We've probably handed over dangerous weapons to countries. We've almost certainly done devastating things to multiple people in the world.

And think of everything we've done to our own people. Just think of what we HAVE admitted. The Tuskegee Experiments? That's what we HAVE admitted to. I'm guarantee as well that's not the worst thing our government has done to their own citizens. I mean imagine if we find out the FBI threatened the president, or actually did kill Kennedy or even just any involvement in that? Holy shit, there's "Think something happened" And there's "Know something happened"... that's not getting revealed.

Should we have an automatic sunset for classified documents? Sure. Should we stop doing awful shit? Yes. But my god, the amount of skeletons in our closet and what will happen when it's all out in the open.... it won't be released. Hell I'm willing to bet there's thing that aren't even shared with the president (Maybe because he doesn't know what to ask for or they flat out wouldn't share it with him. There are limitations to what is shared with a president, for instance an investigation into him.)

Or maybe all classified documents will accidentally be destroyed in a fire the day before they're to be released. OOPS!

CIA has her come in. Shows her the documents she walks out and god "NEVER MIND!" and quickly walks away afraid of what she just has seen. A joke... but probably also completely true.

On the other hand it's completely possible the CIA doesn't have any documents on their role in the Chilean Coup in 1973.... because they chose not to write anything down. (or theirs was planned for 1974)

Don't worry as long as your company isn't making you worry about it. I just personally chose full remote, but the people who chose hybrid have probably done as you say or less. And even when they do come in for "Collaboration days", they sit with us in a conference room.

I'm not going to make it an issue, but you'd fit in at my company. Then again we haven't (And may never have) a mandatory RTO.

Oh I totally misunderstood/misread that. Sorry.

That's fucking dumb as shit, agreed. Then again that gives me an excuse to go home ASAP.

And that still would be legal.

Mcdonalds has existed for decades with that model. The only lawsuits against them are usually settled, and about shit where they knowingly lied like about Transfats. You can't blame Mcdonalds for your unhealthy eating, you can't blame one supermarket because it doesn't sell what you think is healthy. So sure, your version is perfectly fine too... and yet is still legal.

Ever been to a candy store? A chocolate shop? Even Cheescake Factory is really unhealthy in general and still is a major chain? At some point personal responsibility is what it comes down to.

I don't have a problem with this. My office made this rule too, basically you chose hybrid, in person, or full remote. I went full remote. I don't have a desk at the office, but I'm not required to come in. When I go in there's hoteling offices, meaning I get an office to work, and theoretically if I went in for a week, I can leave my stuff there, but after that week, I take my stuff and go home.

4 days every two month is WAY too low to maintain an office for a person. Heck even 2 days a week is borderline. Companies want to reduce their floorplans, and that's reasonable if they allow full remote, as long as full remote means full remote. (not required to come in)

I mean yeah. It doesn't have to even be "Linux" but a smaller required core library, instead of every application getting forced onto a user computer. I've a theory that over 90 percent of a computer's hardware is only required because of coding standards that could be improved. (Small more efficient code versus get it shippable and move on)

I'm a little impressed Linux hasn't had the massive bloat that most of the programming industry has taken on. "Let's pull in every library, take up more space and never optimize code". Linux seems to have avoided that, and that's a good sign. I don't even think it's a OSS thing, because many OSS software slowly bloat up when people keep adding features to them. Linux has avoided that so kudos to them.

I'm kind of curious now when/why does the vice president become president.

So originally I had a question was "Can a president in jail still be president?" and the answer is apparently yes, and a candidate has done it with a minor success (not much, but enough to be valid). Obviously the 25th amendment can be invoked at any time, but a president can serve while in jail.

But what if a president dies or is dead. Apparently "What if before the electoral college" is taken care of. The delegates can vote for someone else. But let's say they don't want to?

So obviously if he's not sworn in there's a huge problem, but let's say he's sworn in and dies a week after that. He's president. The immediate thing people will say "Well Vice President takes over". Now hold on, there's specific steps that happen, The vice president has to take the oath of office.

Seems like the answer is actually "Well the Vice President is the president with or with out the oath of office." And that's probably the truth of the matter, but I don't know I'm now curious if someone legitimately want to keep the president in office for some reason, even for a day, could they? Do they have to immediately invoke the 25th amendment or is it automatic? (Again probably the later, but I'm just thinking about it)

Can we stop finding the stupidest people and shoving a microphone in front of them giving them a platform?

Are there people who think Trump can do no wrong? Absolutely. Did other people vote for Kanye in 2020, or Anthony Fauci? Yeah. Should any of these people be given a platform absolutely not.

And if you think they do deserve it, do you decry if a child molester is used as an example of the LGBTQ community, or someone who calls for forced Veganism/communism is used to represent the Democratic party? Unless you think this is ok for both parties then it's not really ok for either (And even if you think it's ok, it's wrong because it builds a false narrative).

I feel like platforms use this shit for clickbait more than everything but also to kind of brainwash people because this implies there's a large group of these people with only two people even referred too. I mean honestly there should be a higher standard for something to "Be a story" than how many clicks it'll get, but alas not in 2023.

Don't know the rules (They probably keep changing) but you can see it here in incognito mode.

Even if that was the case, I'd make an alt account no one knows about to be able to look at his tweets if I cared enough. The point I was making it is it's dumb to "Block what people can see" when they can get around it with a couple button clicks.

(And to be clear because I'm getting downvoting, I'm not saying blocking is bad, but the implementation is pretty dumb, and at least removing the "You can't see this message because he blocked you" should be removed.)

Not far enough. It'd be lovely if I could scale Windows down to almost 7 gigs or so (what windows 10 is, probably should be lower) But the thing is Windows in general is just a bloated piece of crap that continues to grow.

I would love to see/feel Windows is reaching the point where it's a small program with tons of optional programs, but god damn, I'm so sick of these bloated fucking OSes.

Android now takes 20+ gigs, Windows takes massive amounts of hard drive. And I know someone will say there's a way to configure it, but the amount of bloat that people just accept on programs is insane.

It's silly when Call of duty Warzone requires 150 GB, it's a bigger problem when windows continues to consume more and more memory with out a good reason other than pushing new products and services most customers don't want/use.

While removing it is stupid, I also think it's a limited feature. I am blocked by Jason Schreier like many people in gaming culture are. (I didn't even comment on his post, but he did a mass block based on who responded to another person's post because that's the type of person he is) He's a relatively famous gaming journalist so when someone links his messages I can't see them, right?

Well I can, I just open an incognito window, and I still get to see what ever he's posting, because when you aren't logged in you get to see everything.

So in that way Block doesn't really make a lot of sense. Limiting who can interact with you might needed, but limiting who can see what you post doesn't really.

There is still "Mute" which I use much more often to get rid of "Console war" crap, from my feed, but honestly I also just don't use "X" Because in general I haven't found it that useful, and feels like it's always been a massive time waster. If Elon is making other people realize that now, I'd say he's doing a great job in waking up people to the fact that it's always been a pretty shitty social media.

And how did that case end?

Hint: Not well You can try to sue anyone for anything. There's just no guarentee it'll work, and it didn't there.

There are cases that do work, such as about transfats but that is about specifically misleading someone, not supplying something unhealthy. Also that was settled, not fully through the courts.

This is true, but public reaction isn't the same as government intervention. People are accountable for their actions to others. The government can't limit speech but businesses can limit speech on their premises, and individuals can hold people accountable.

That saying Rosanne fucked herself years earlier with the "Ambien tweet" and that was decades after pissing off everyone while grabbing her crotch when singing the national anthem. She's had a lot of controversies. The fact she even had a platform to say something about the holocaust is insane, considering her career was toast after the Ambien thing. Which kind of sucks for her because the Conners are still going strong.

Ask yourself if the American government had the ability to talk directly to the Russian populace with no interference from their government, what might they say/do/cause to happen.

That's what Tiktok is, and that's what a lot of the fear is about. It's know that all Chinese companies have heavy connections to the government, so if they wanted to do something they could.

Not even saying Tiktok is that bad, mostly just saying Americans, especially the government is a bunch of fucking hypocrites about this shit.

Honestly, keep it to "If you don't like it don't use it" and leave it at that. The idea of the government picking what social network people are allowed on seems foolish, and I imagine many people will side load the app (At least on Android) if it's officially banned.

And almost half of Americans favor banning the free speech of the opposing view points (Which ever party they aren't). So this is not a shock.

Said none of those companies.

Listen, all those companies suck, but you don't have to put words in their mouths, everyone seems extremely positive about Baldur's Gate, and I would say almost all developer aspire to reach the same breadth and depth as Baldur's Gate 3 with as much polish as they put on it. There's a long list of reasons why they can't or don't (often publishers... or scope creep... but mostly publishers).

Unless there's a massive thread of shit talking from other developers that I'm missing, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't exist.

last YT revenue was 29.24 billion USD

That's a huge number, but it is meaningless. It's more important to focus on profit (or net income) and unfortunately those numbers aren't as easy to get. You can see all the financials but while Youtube gets revenue numbers, how much they pay to partners, and they spend on google services isn't itemized.

They are probably operating at a profit, but definitely not 29 billiuon dollars of profit