deweydecibel @ deweydecibel @lemmy.world

Posts

2

Comments

1,207

Joined

2 yr. ago

The point of the article is to challenge Trump's claims about the audience size during his speech, not to suggest he's losing support. Mostly just to catch him in more lies.

The article states pretty explicitly that this is not unusual. Twice. That line they quoted is a direct line from the article:

Trump is still speaking in Wildwood but much of the crowd has left. It's cold and he's been speaking 90 minutes. This whole area was full of people when Trump started," Anderson wrote.

And again:

"You can clearly see that people are leaving while [Trump is] rambling incoherently," Masterson wrote in another post. "This happens at a lot of rallies, cultists show up thinking he will say something new and profound. Then they get bored and walkout."

The whole premise of the article is stated right up front. Trump claimed an audience of 100,000, but the evidence shows that audience didn't hang around for him, undercutting the claim.

Feels like before you complain about journalism ethics you should at least commit to actually reading the articles so you know what you're complaining about.

For the record, Aaron Swartz never actually went to trial, nor was he "sentenced" to anything.

Federal prosecutors came after him with overzealous charges in an effort to make him accept a plea deal (they do that a lot), which he rejected. It would have gone to court where the feds would have had to justify the charges they were bringing.

But that never happened because he killed himself.

We don't actually know how this all would have played out.

He didn't get the chance to share them because he was caught downloading them, and his download requests were getting blocked.

And to be clear, he wasn't downloading from the Internet as one might download a car, he went into a restricted networking closet and connected directly to the switch, leaving a computer sitting there sending access requests. He had to keep going back to it to check on the progress, which is when they caught him.

And the trial hadn't started yet when he committed suicide.

Yeah, I agree with the sentiment of the post, but this is just wildly misleading. He was not sentenced to anything, he committed suicide before the trial.

He was given a plea deal for 6 months that he rejected, in an effort to make the feds justify the ludicrous charges they were pressing. Had it gone to trial, he certainly wouldn't have been found not guilty, but it's unlikely many of those charges would have stuck. It's extremely unlikely he would actually have served 35 years.

Look, the kid was a hero, but this is also patently false.

He was not sentenced to 35 years. The trial hadn't started. 35 years was the maximum possible sentence. He was given a plea deal for 6 months that he rejected.

We don't need to spin lies to make his story more tragic than it already is.

In what world are Tesla's "cheap"?

That's what happens when new posts aren't allowed to exist if it asks a similar question to an old one.

That's an important point, and and it ties into the way ChatGPT and other LLMs take advantage of a flaw in the human brain:

Because it impersonates a human, people are more inherently willing to trust it. To think it's "smart". It's dangerous how people who don't know any better (and many people that do know better) will defer to it, consciously or unconsciously, as an authority and never second guess it.

And the fact it's a one on one conversation, no comment sections, no one else looking at the responses to call them out as bullshit, the user just won't second guess it.

IDK why you interpreted their comment as hating.

Yes, actually. Look up Oldlander addon for Firefox.

It's new and kinda of rough but it definitely helps.

At any point in the process, does it warn you about setting up recovery with personal email addresses?

Feels like with as much as Proton advertises nowadays as a privacy protecting service, they need to be taking into consideration that a lot of their customers now are going to be average users who don't know anything about proper OpSec. They should be much clearer about what things they can't protect you from.

It shouldn't be in a press release like this, they should be explaining the difference between privacy and anonymity to the customer. It's not like their marketing team isn't aware of the fact most people don't know any better.

It's in their best interests, too, because it doesn't matter how many times you say "we provide privacy not anonymity", the headlines are a bad look.

I know it's not the point, but I love the completely arbitrary bit where they're walking down a road together, and has absolutely no bearing on anything the happens.

My Jellyfin is also running media from recycled HDDs from work. No where near this impressive haul, but it was nice to be able to get a solid 10 TBs for free to get my server going.

I mean, unironically, yeah.

It's not even that we need to go back to email. The problem isn't moving on from outdated forms of communication, it's that the technology being pushed as a replacement for it is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Which is to say nothing of the fact that all of these new platforms are proprietary, walled off, and in some cases don't make controlling the data easy if you're not hosting it (and their searches are trash).

And then what? What happens after they "burn it to the ground"? Life is suddenly great for them?

How many work places have you set on fire for doing underhanded shit to you?

It is shocking because they did it after the investigation had started, which is monumentally stupid.

You can destroy any records you want at any time, unless there's an investigation underway or you have good reason to believe one will be starting. At that point, you're destroying evidence.

Always people that come along and say this.

To them I say: imagine if you had a calculator app that you only ever used for basic addition. Then the calculator app removed the subtraction, multiplication, and division functions. It may would not seem like a big deal to you, but that doesn't mean the app hasn't gotten less useful.

It's not even just about the fact that it's going to wreck those agencies, it also means that there will be substantially less whistle-blowing, and there will be virtually no one working for the government who will raise an alarm or put a stop to anything. When everybody is on board, that creates a substantial amount of power for the executive branch.

What makes it so frightening is that the discussion starts to slide away from the actual functioning of our democratic system and the workings of the executive branch, and starts getting into matters of where power is derived from in a government.

What we have seen is that our Congress is infected by too many friends of fascism, if not fascist themselves. Unless the Democrats have a supermajority in both chambers, Republicans can successfully derail every single thing Congress ever tries to do to reign in an executive branch that's out of control. Trump was impeached twice, and painfully, obviously guilty both times, and nothing happened because the system has been so fundamentally broken.

Knowing now that Congress can do nothing to stop him, and of course knowing that the court system is captured at this point, Trump will be completely and utterly unafraid of doing anything. The systems in place that would protect us from a renegade executive office will fail to stop him.

Having the entire executive, and every seat in every department filled with loyalists, with nothing in his way that can effectively stop it, is basically a precursor to dictatorship.

The antenna doesn't need power to receive the signal, unless it's boosted, but something tells me that's not the case here.

What might consume more power would be any kind of decoding that's going on.

Yeha, but they can make their free tier as shitty as they want

Who suggested they couldn't? Having the right to do something doesn't mean no one else can voice their displeasure.

If you don't want to pay but still think you deserve a product with all the features you like, then you're delusional.

It has nothing to do with "deserve". Shitty businesses practices are worth calling out. Especially because this has nothing to do with supporting Spotify and everything to do with enriching stockholders. It's a sign of desperation: they can't make their product better to entice new customers, so they're making their free product worse. It's trashy and greedy.

But please, go on expending your energy defending a corporation from valid criticism.