Lvxferre [he/him] @ lvxferre @mander.xyz

The catarrhine who invented a perpetual motion machine, by dreaming at nigh

---

Read more

Posts

6

Comments

1,977

Joined

2 yr. ago

The whole "one individual talking to another" aspect of the internet of the 00s is gone. It feels more and more like an "everyone is talking to you and hearing you, like it or not". Facebook is only an example of that - and even if it didn't enshittify, I find unlikely that it would've kept that aspect.

I also wonder if my experiences with Orkut wouldn't be similar to the ones of the author with FB, if only Google didn't kill Orkut. (It was a big thing here.)

I added it to the comment - thank you!

it’s become more pertinent because the increase of tourism was accompanied by these scams (my source for this is word of mouth, take it with a grain of salt)

Yup, and the paper confirms it: "Esta atividade é regularmente realizada nas grandes cidades do nosso país, mormente nas zonas de grande afluência turística" (this activity is regularly conducted in the larger cities of our country, mainly in the zones with great touristic affluence).

What about the bean bags and snacks? Lust isn't the only deadly sin dammit, you got to think about sloth and gluttony!

It depends on the implementation, in both cases. I can somewhat tolerate:

• ads that are visually distinct from the actual content, not personalised or targetted, not obstrusive or obnoxious
• paywalls that apply to recent news, but don't get in your way while you're looking for older stuff

Go past that and I'm avoiding your ads with uBlock and your paywalls with archive links. And, more importantly: there are other financing methods, such as Patreon.

[Warning: I'm not a lawyer.] As people answered it mostly for USA, I gave it a check for other countries.

For both Italian law (article 640 of the Penal Code) and Brazilian law (the famous article 171 of the Penal Code), this behaviour falls neatly into fraud laws, and leads to a few years of reclusion. I couldn't find any law specifically for selling it as if it was a drug though.

For Portugal I actually found a paper about the topic. It claims that it isn't a crime per se, but it's usually filled under other crimes, and the paper proposes the creation of specific laws against it. [EDIT: as AdNecrias correctly highlights, this is a sci paper, not legislation.]

I kind of expect other countries and their legal systems to be the same in this regard. It's simply not a pressing issue.

I've eaten pigeons plenty times in my childhood. That my grandma "recovered". But to be fair back then my neighbourhood was suburban-ish.

That was my first bet too, but you could see it as "greed death" (justifying the /i:/) or "great death" (so /eɪ/). In fact that's a fun aspect of this word - you can see it as multiple alternative blends with the same rough meaning.

Got it - that explains it.

Did you learn or coin it?

Either way it's a nice concept. I'd recommend to transcribe it using IPA, instead of this... esoteric system that you're using. For example I got no clue on what that ⟨é⟩ is supposed to represent. If the ⟨ea⟩ is supposed to sound

• as in ⟨death⟩, it's /gɹɛθ/
• as in ⟨great⟩, it's /gɹeɪθ/
• as in ⟨grease⟩, it's /gɹiːθ/

Thank you.

And now, in a clearer way: I apologise for the suspicion. As someone else said here, since American elections are going on, there's a lot of misinformation surrounding China - both the population/the Chinese and the government/PCC.

Taste differences make cooking specially messy to communalise. Not impossible though.

You're right. And IMO they should be legally banned from doing so - because the people who signed up for this crap agreed with 23 and Me's ToS, not with someone else's.

But, well... as you said, capitalism going to capitalism. The "right thing to do" is often out of the table of options.

I have a relative who considered doing this test. I'm glad that the family talked him out of it. (Surprisingly enough, not just me.)

Anyway, my [hopefully not "hot"] take: for most part the data should be destroyed, as it involves private matters. If there's data that cannot be reasonably associated with an individual or well-defined group of individuals, perhaps it could be released into the public domain, but I'm not sure on that.

That's a better way, I agree.

Yeah. There's some good stuff there, like 8:32, but it's full of so much crap that... urgh.

"And you'll know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

Give the whole chapter 5 a check, specially 5:14; crippling people is apparently their god's punishment for sinning. Or 3:36, someone gets really pissy if you don't believe him!

It depends on your tastes. It's effective for me as I enjoy quite a bit of the popular content here (like Linux stuff), but we need far more activity for other topics.

I don't think that there's a specific term for picking a religious figure solely as a behaviour standard, with no regards to the beliefs. But you could describe yourself as "morally Christian", I guess?

You don’t know the context,

I do know enough of the context to back up what I said, because the poster did provide enough details through the post. Like this:

1. "and have done my fair share of talking to people as well as toward people" - or, roughly, "I'm used to expose what I think". This strongly hints "random" (i.e. non-specific) topics; either casual monologues or casual discussions. Either way it's hinted that it isn't a single topic.
2. "some talks being more passionate than others" - i.e. multiple discussions. "Passionate" reads like an euphemism for "heavy disagreement"; and while this utterance isn't enough to confirm that reading, it gets confirmed later on.
3. "so I guess having my odds of this reduced is a factor here" - there's some edition error here but, alongside the adjacent utterances, it conveys roughly "so I guess that my odds of being wrong in this claim are reduced by a factor" or similar. OP found a pattern that they claim to believe to be true.
4. "when I say occasionally “projecting” will be brought up during a conversation." - further confirming that OP is talking about multiple discussions.
5. "It’s always in an accusatory kind of context" - confirms #2 ("passionate" as an euphemism, it's basically name calling). And that "always" confirms multiple occurrences.
6. What OP did not say: anything that even hints topic-dependence, further reinforcing #1.

Parse the above and you get the context - OP is talking about debating multiple topics with different people, and found what they believe to be a pattern on the usage of the word when there's a fight.

Remember - just like the context provides information to interpret the text, the text also provides information to determine the context.

because OP didn’t provide any details of what was being discussed. [i.e. the topic]

As shown above, OP is claiming to have found a pattern across multiple discussions. As such, "what was being discussed" is not relevant here.

It’s entirely possible that it was a valid call in some or all of those situations.

Yeah, nah.

Outside psychoanalysis this "waaaaah ur projectin" shite is on the same tier as name calling, "NO U", whataboutism and similar crap. It's fallacious, and it assumes shit about the other person. It is not a valid argument, it's condensed idiocy.

Side note: while anecdotal I can confirm, independently from OP, that people often use this "waaah projection!" pseudo-defence a bit too often when discussing.

It is an actual phenomenon in psychology, where you assign a set of your attributes that you consider undesirable to another person. It works like a defence mechanism to stabilise the psyche. It is not that commonly discussed though - except perhaps in psychoanalysis.

And that's exactly why those "keyboard psychologists" (who are neither psychologists, nor informed laymen) repurposed the term into the "no u!" defence that I mentioned. It's simply too good of an excuse when someone criticises them, an easy way to turn the criticism against the critic.

2:10 "I assumed that, if I couldn't beat the system, there was no point on whatever I was doing": that's the old nirvana fallacy. The rest of the video is about dismantling it for the individual, and boils down to identifying who you're trying to protect yourself against (threat model), compromising, etc.

It's relevant to note that each tiny bit of privacy that you can get against a certain threat helps - specially if it's big tech, as the video maker focuses on. It gives big tech less room to manipulate you, and black hats less info to haunt you after you read that corporate apology saying "We are sorry. We take user safety seriously. Today we had a breach [...]".

And on a social level, every single small action towards privacy that you do:

• makes obtaining personal data slightly more expensive thus slightly less attractive
• supports a tiny bit more alternatives that respect your privacy
• normalises seeking privacy a tiny bit more

and so goes on. Seeking your own privacy helps to build a slightly more private world for you and for the others, even if you don't get the full package.