my_hat_stinks @ my_hat_stinks @programming.dev

Posts

3

Comments

290

Joined

2 yr. ago

You clearly didn't bother to read anything I wrote (or you completely lack reading comprehension), but I'll give it one more shot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zucchini

This article is about the vegetable. For other uses, see Zucchini (disambiguation).

In cookery, it is treated as a vegetable, usually cooked and eaten as an accompaniment or savory dish, though occasionally used in sweeter cooking.

A 1928 report on vegetables grown in New York State treats 'Zucchini' as one among 60 cultivated varieties of C. pepo.

In France, zucchini is a key ingredient in ratatouille, a stew of summer vegetable-fruits and vegetables prepared in olive oil and cooked for an extended time over low heat.

In 2005, a poll of 2,000 people revealed it to be Britain's 10th favorite culinary vegetable.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vegetable

1
: a usually herbaceous plant (such as the cabbage, bean, or potato) grown for an edible part that is usually eaten as part of a meal
also : such an edible part

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vegetable#Terminology

Posting this link again because you didn't read it.

Culinary vegetables unarguably exist since we're referring to a physical thing which indisputably exists. I have seen a courgette before, I can confirm vegetables do in fact exist. You're arguing that they don't exist because you disagree with the words used to refer to them, which is also wrong. The fact many people use the culinary definition of vegetable when referring to courgettes means that the culinary definition of vegetable is correct; language is defined by how it's used.

Vegetables exist. The culinary definition of vegetable also exists. The fact you don't like that definition is irrelevant.

The first sentence of your article says cryptids aren't real, vegetables do exist and we interact with them every day. I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make. If someone tells you their name is Bob but fails to cite a source that does not mean Bob doesn't exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vegetable#Terminology

I leave on time, how is that an insult? I'd be much more insulted if someone asked me to work for them for free. That's what unpaid overtime is.

it’s pretty shady to be looking for legal safe harbor for scammers who rob people all over the world every day.

This is an argument that happened entirely within your own head, not in this thread. I think I made it clear right from the start I'm against scammers and approve of (ethical) actions taken against them, but I'm also against people who dox, invade privacy, engage in vigilantism, and gain unauthorised access to other's computer systems (particularly when it's for profit and ego). These are not mutually exclusive, there is no disconnect there. I even gave an example of more appropriate actions to take against scammers, notably actions that are actually effective.

Criticism against "justice" porn is not remotely the same thing as condoning scammers. You're arguing in bad faith and you know it.

This is very untrue and you definitely shouldn't be giving out legal advice like this on topics you're not knowledgeable on, but exactly which part is a crime and how criminal it is will depend on your local laws. Some such computer misuse laws are intentionally written very broadly with generic wording precisely so that edge cases such as unintentionally granting an unauthorised party access to a system does not clear them of wrongdoing when they do so.

As for how to tell which laws are relevant and whether you've breached them? Well, I'm sure the answer will shock you.

When I was in school the less well-off kids got their lunch free. There was definitely no equivalent to a "marker" the linked article mentions, unless you include the lunch ticket. I was actually kind of jealous at the time, I didn't understand why I had to pay when I didn't bring my own lunch and they didn't.

Singling out kids because their parents can't afford food is kind of fucked up.

Accessing a system you're not authorised to access, regardless of how that access was obtained, is generally not legal. The way to sort that out is, you guessed it, a trial.

That argument doesn't work, all you're doing is pointing out the issues with vigilantism. He's also committing a crime, are the scammers now in the right too since they're targeting a suspected criminal?

This is why trials exist.

I suggest you read the next few words in that sentence which you conveniently left out of your quote, might help clear up any confusion.

I'll definitely be downvoted for this too but I completely agree. There's a fine line between entertainment at scammers' expense and vigilantism for views. Publicly spreading the faces of people you're accusing of a crime without any sort of trial is definitely the latter and has little direct impact on shutting down these operations. This video screams ego trip.

I used to watch Kitboga and they were much more ethical (at least when I watched). They'd lean heavily into the entertainment side, waste a lot of the scammers' time which they then couldn't spend on actual victims, and report/shutdown accounts as they came up which actually does directly impact their operation. Your scam call center still works if one of your workers gets their face posted online, it doesn't if you have no bank account.

A little ham-fisted, sure, but if you think it's irrelevant you evidently didn't take any time to actually think about it (you did also reply instantly, so I'll take that over you lacking reading comprehension).

I'll simplify.

Digital piracy is illegal copying of unlicenced content.
Alice creates content.
Alice licences the content to Bob.
Bob decides to distribute the content with advertisements from Charlie.
You download the content.
Charlie does not pay Bob.
You did not breach any licences.
You did not pirate the content.

And just to further clarify, Alice is the person who made a video, Bob is Youtube, Charlie is an advertiser. Your argument is not an ad is piracy if "the advertisement company [hasn't] paid the content creator." The advertiser pays the distribution company, and the relationship between those two companies is irrelevant. The advertiser failing to pay does not retroactively turn you into a pirate.

The whole argument is pointless in the first place, it's irrelevant whether or not you consider ad blocking to be technically piracy. A sensible adblock argument would be around the ethics of manipulation versus payment, or security versus whatever it is advertisers want. Arguing semantics doesn't matter.

This is nonsense. Your argument is that you're a pirate if one corporation with no relation to the content fails to pay a corporation which distributes but does not own the content. If you watch an ad then the advertising company refuses to pay you do not suddenly become a pirate.

If a struggling McDonald's franchise fails to pay some franchisee fee that does not mean you pirated your big mac.

Dark matter might not even exist, all we know is that gravity-based predictions break down after a certain point. Dark matter is the just the most popular proposed solution where you essentially just add extra undetectable mass until it works. The distant second is Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) or some variation of it, which is where you try to tweak the theories to fit observations instead. It has the same problem as dark matter where we keep coming up with better experiments which always fail to find anything.

There's a similar problem at the opposite end of the scale spectrum too; quantum mechanics doesn't play nice with our current understanding of gravity leading to the search for the "theory of everything". This is why I personally lean towards the idea that it's our theories that are wrong and not an undetectable mass, but this isn't my field so my opinion isn't worth much (especially since a majority actually working in the field lean towards dark matter as far as I can tell).

You're being downvotes because it's irrelevant and you're claiming a feature that also exists in Firefox is the reason your preferred browser is better. It makes no sense.

There are currently 120 comments, of which I can see one person suggested "violent protest" and one person suggested "blood". Most of the comments which give any suggestions say unionisation, protest, and reform. If you see those as inherently violent that says a lot more about you than it does the other commenters.

There's a lot of replies here about why US citizens are in the situation they are but not how to fix it, which was the question you asked. You have two political parties in a first past the post system with largely similar corporate focussed policies, people primarily vote against a party rather than for one that represents them. If you really want to change things you'll need to overhaul your voting system to break up your two party system and encourage competition from parties that actually represent what people want.

Unfortunately there is no safe and easy way to do this; it means the two parties in power giving up that power which they will not do willingly. You'll need large scale consistent and actually disruptive protests, ie not just meeting up for a day then returning to life as nornal, but the US has a history of responding to protests the same way they do everything; with violence.

So more practically, you can contact your representative at the appropriate level of government and hope they don't completely ignore you this time.

There was an experiment once where it was determined that a frog with it's brain removed wouldn't jump out of slowly heated water but would reflexively jump if placed into already hot water, leading to a myth that a frog won't leave boiling water if heated gradually enough.

Idioms around frog boiling generally means to make changes slowly and gradually enough that there is minimal reaction from affected parties.

Username and display name can be set independently, you should have a "Display name" field in settings. Their non-unique display name is "max" and their unique username is "@kittykittycatboys@lemmy.blahaj.zone". If you check their profile you should see both.

If you don't set a display name it will be the same as your username, if you set display name to the same as username (like I have) it'll show your username without the instance even to people on other instances.

I'm not sure I follow that analogy, if you get a ride to a hospital you don't expect it to lock off all other destinations. What happens in the hospital is irrelevant.

From reading the article, this is more like if you walk into a hotel and they burn down your house so you have no choice but to stay. I suppose in theory you could argue in very bad faith that this is a problem with the house since it's the house that burned, but in reality the problem is the fact they're the ones who started the fire.