Quatity_Control @ Quatity_Control @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

114

Joined

2 yr. ago

While here in Australia we already have a state running on 100% renewables, any plan for nuclear takes too long and costs too much. Read up. The barriers for compact reactors are large and expensive before nuclear is feasible and they still haven't worked out that pesky waste issue. Investing in nuclear once renewables are established is fine. Expecting nuclear to bear the load while they are yet to be built is just fantasy. Renewables are here and are cheaper. They are literally the answer already here.

That's a convenient sound bite that really ignores actual data on renewables.

Sure. I check a step then do it. Then wake my phone up and do the next step. It's not like I have the screen on the whole time. And if I did, it's one hour. That's not my whole battery.

But if you are a true apple user, you'd be watching the recipe on your ipad not your iPhone.

I find it hard to believe there is a real need for a wireless charger in the kitchen. The whole point of increasing the efficiency of wireless charging is to reduce the time and number of times wireless charging is used.

Overnight charger and one at work? Seems like a reasonable amount of tape?

I mean, I would just stick down the charger?

If you have five things that are related, put them in a folder. Repeat. Eventually you end up with maybe ten distinct folders.

... Discogs and Facebook groups would like a word regarding vinyl

Slightly concerned over the amount of slow waddling between areas

How many adolescents die from bike accidents?

But teens are not primary school and are far more than 13 and 14. Why would you ignore 15-19? It seems like your point only covers a minority of cases in which case any recommendation will have a minimal impact. Why are you so concerned about a minority of cases?

#1 killer of teens is dangerous driving most often influenced by peer pressure. Removing the peers by putting them ona bike would reduce the teen mortality rate by far more than the mortality rate of teens on bikes going over 30mph. See, stats can be used in many ways. Not always supportive of your opinion. Which is why it is important to choose a source that specifically relates to the topic. If you don't want it pointed out that your source is irrelevant to the discussion.

Your welcome to your opinions. I'm just pointing out a study of primary school children is irrelevant to this particular thread. If you have studies on teens, I'd love to read them.

That's primary school children. Not teens.

Indeed, by pretending to ignore what I wrote but devoting time to putting in a reply, having no basis for your mistaken assumptions and following up with insults that only relate to your own behaviour, I'm finally comfortable calling you out as unfit to be CEO of your own skid marks. Couldn't even troll your own turds.

Yeah, choose ignorance. We'll both be happier.

"Learn more about how to keep yourself safe by testing your instincts below and guessing whether each instance is a scam, using real-life examples."

Distinctly not saying to research online and verify information.

As for tests outside academia, such as this one, even a bone headed dunce understands tests test the knowledge and ability you have, and not what you google online. To the point that if a test allows you to use other sources, that is always specifically stated. So that normal, reasonable people do not treat it as a normal, reasonable test, and complete it with their inherent knowledge and ability. I'm sorry you missed this valuable and important life lesson in learning. Explaining in the answers that you should have known to use outside sources is exactly as I have stated; a bad test.

"The best test phishing emails realistically emulate actual phishing emails. Intentionally adding errors only serves to train employees to catch bad phishing attacks."

I'm glad as a CEO you don't actually produce any content for your company. Emulating phishing emails means including the errors that are in phishing emails. Those are the ways you train people to recognise a phishing email. If you don't include the errors then the only true verification of a genuine/phishing email is verifying with the purported sender by another communication channel. Not at all an effective policy, I'm sure you would agree.

No one's butt hurt here. Treating a genuine email with caution and wariness is inherent good phishing awareness behaviour. If you can pull your vacuous head out of your voluminous arse for a moment, you will realise that once again, this is a bad test, a bad quiz, not an effective teaching tool, and just plain old click bait. Disparaging it is an appropriate response, and a fucktard such as yourself, with your vaunted claims of related professional acumen, trying to defend it is reprehensible.

You're just pointing out that you are overqualified for this test.

At its root, it is a TEST. Not many TESTs allow you to Google for answers and supporting information. Unless specified any TEST provides in the question the information to determine the answer. By not providing all the information and not informing you to utilise any source available to obtain extra ESSENTIAL infirmation, it's a bad test. Intended to trick you.

You and I both know if we create a test phishing email with no mistakes, it's not a failure if people click on it. It's a failure on our part for creating a BAD TEST. Same concept.

In the phishing Awareness course I wrote and sell, I do advocate to confirm that domains, phone numbers and other contact details, logos, are correct with the official website.

I don't advocate that when they receive a bill for something they know they didn't buy, they should go to Google.

And with googles current state, I could easily buy a domain and buy ads to put it at the top of search results. Googling the answer isn't actually the answer. Verifying against known legit sources is.

It's a shit test, which more than half of the people in this thread got right, yourself excepted.