lmmarsano @ lmmarsano @lemmynsfw.com

Posts

0

Comments

422

Joined

7 mo. ago

That it's irresponsible to sell a false bill of goods: a company sincere about not giving a fuck & that merely puts out an advisory is more credible than one that entertains illusions that fact-checking all social media isn't a foolish endeavor. We don't get that in reality, so why should we pretend we can get that online? Ultimately, the burden & responsibility to work out the truth is & has always been with the individual, and it's irresponsible to pretend we can sever or transfer that responsibility, especially in an open medium like the town square, social media, or general reality.

There's also the intractable problem of settling the truth. Why should anyone trust a company or anyone to be arbiter of truth? Infallible authorities don't exist & they are inevitably going to get this wrong & draw wild conclusions like that pro-palestinian protests are antisemitic & need to be censored. While they could merely place notes/comments of fallible, researched opinions, we already get that with discussions like in real life.

Social media isn't a controlled publication like an encyclopedia or news agency that chooses its writers & staff. It's a communication platform open to the public.

Instead of promoting a false sense of confidence that lowers people's guard with assurances no one can deliver, it's better to cut the pretense, admit there is no real solution, and remind everyone the obvious—unreliable information from anyone is untrustworthy, so they need to grow up, verify their information, and keep their guard up.

Doesn't reminding users not to be so gullible address that?

A problem is promoting unrealistic expectations that untrustworthy information is reliable because someone else will unerringly determine the truth & catch falsehoods from spreading. Claiming that ever made sense is bogus.

“you know nothing” as if that is enough to refute anything

Not really. Man, that comment is so painfully misinformed it wows me isn't really an argument.

Sneaky edit, there…

Let's review timestamps:

• mine

  Created: Sunday, June 1st, 2025 at 1:27:38 AM GMT-04:00
  Modified Sunday, June 1st, 2025 at 1:58:50 AM GMT-04:00

• yours

  Sunday, June 1st, 2025 at 2:01:03 AM GMT-04:00

A change before your input.

What makes you think we don't? Many of us already do without realizing it.

An observation isn't a fallacy: not an ounce of anything firm to substantiate what they wrote, just impression & hot takes.

Signal is definitely said to be encrypted. But you can bet there’s a back door in there. Specially with all the recent scrutiny on it in the news, hackers are figuring out ways in.

Wow: you know nothing.

• security at Telegram is amateur hour
• the Signal protocol (used by Signal & WhatsApp) is open source, auditable by anyone, and has been audited by security researchers

A real guide on secure communication.

Ban flavored vapes, switch to cigarettes & cigars. 👍

I'd rather "trust" a company that cuts the bullshit with notices like

The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.

to remind the user that trusting noncredible information from unreliable sources is a ridiculous concept.

Oh noes: a private company that has no duty to challenge falsehoods has given up any pretense of giving a fuck.

Police ethical standards are practically nonexistent in the US. Deception of juveniles & the intellectually disabled is permitted in most states to obtain court-admissible confessions, and police are trained to obtain confessions that way.

Alternative: put entry point code in file __main__.py & run the containing package (eg, some_package) as a top-level expression (eg, python -m some_package).

They're junk pseudoscience as stated in introductory textbooks on psychology & by the National Academy of Sciences & American Psychological Association. Law enforcement keeps them not for their scientific validity, but as an interrogation tactic for people who don't know better.

Most likely written by AI

Are comments like this most likely written by AI? Am I AI?

Obligatory em dash—done!

I look forward to a glirchy vibe coded OS that uses embeded AI for everything

That OS already exists. Why do with AI vibe-coding what Microsoft already got paying shitty programmers to make a slapshod OS?

• steals start menu back in time from apple
• crashes all over the place

Microsoft was ahead of its time.

Stop trolling and start learning instead of spreading you absolutely insane and uneducated crap here.

Are you referring to yourself?

Maybe you need to whip out a dictionary or go back to lower education & not sleep through US civics/government.

The words are right there in the link I sent you.

subordinate is nowhere on that page: did you hallucinate? Try quoting it.

Checks & balances don't mean "any subordinate of the Executive is subordinate to the Judiciary": they're still separate/independent branches with limited powers to keep each other in check. It's called separation of powers.

Checks by the judicial branch are scant: pretty much declare legislation & executive actions unconstitutional. It's powerless to enforce. Prosecutorial discretion remains with the prosecutor.

The Department of Justice is under the executive branch: quit willfully ignoring that/pretending that means anything else. We get the government we have, not the government as we wish it were.

Not how government works: they're independent branches.

The DOJ is subordinate to the Judiciary

Maybe crack open a book on US government or read an encyclopedia article: Department of Justice is department of the executive branch. Historically, they started out as the federal government's attorneys/prosecutors.

The judicial branch only has the federal courts, its judges, its administrators.

It is entirely possible at this point that the Marshalls could be ordered to arrest a Trump admin lawyer, who has been deemed being in criminal contempt of court, or some other LE official that’s been found to have committed a crime…

And then this person could then be defended by the Secret Service, or the other members of whichever armed LE group under the Executive branch…

Unnecessary: US Marshals Service is administered by Department of Justice of the executive branch headed by the president. Why pretend the president couldn't simply pass down orders?

Sometimes my comments are mistaken for AI, which I don't understand, because I'm a horrible writer.

Now I like to imitate AI just to piss people off—new trolling potential unlocked! Also, I like characters :—…⁝.