dyslexit

I think the story is implying that it wasn't his actual password:

>Gevers is familiar with leaked databases of old passwords and searched these for Hunter Biden’s data. After analysing these old databases, he felt that the information was incorrect. Hunter Biden used other passwords. Gevers: ‘I could tell that it wasn’t his password.’

It's much more insane to me that the President of the United States has a twitter account with no 2FA and the password 'maga2020'.

> Raising the wage requirement will mean that the actual talent will have better chance to get in.

How does this follow?

I feel like their entire mission changed around the time of their merger with Activision. I remember reading a long time ago the original devs saying they made games they would want to play, and I believe it showed. The most obvious example of that to me were the game stories. Back then the stories and background lore had depth and were fascinatingly interesting. Characters felt like they had real motivations and reasons for doing things, the worlds felt believable, gritty, and sometimes unforgiving.

I don't know if it was Activision's influence, many of the original devs moving on, or World of Warcraft coming out, but since then everything about the company seems to have changed. So much of what they do nowadays just seem like money grabs. They release pay to win content meant to be addictive, dumbed down their art style to looking like cartoons that appeal to the least common denominator, follow trends instead of doing anything innovating, and seem to have completely stopped caring about making any interesting story. The villains in Diablo 3 were comically badly written.

At some point they even tried to force users to use their REAL WORLD names on battle.net[1].

It really isn't the same company as it used to be in the early 2000's.

[1]https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/blizzard-requires-rea...

It's implied that the 17 year old is kirk

And at 5M⊕ would have a diameter of about 9cm (or at 10M⊕ about the size of a bowling ball).

Torture was heavily repelled by Democrats, and was only "legalized" in that John McCain intentionally put in loop holes into his own bill that allowed the CIA to continue it because Bush threatened to veto the bill otherwise. Those loop holes were later closed under Obama both by legislation and an executive order. This was very much a partisan issue.

I would argue that government lies, especially ones that happen on a scale like that in the US, are not at all why we have conspiracy theorists. I think there's a more underlying human need to believe that there is something behind "it all", and when that is combined with a lack of education, political awareness, or just stubborness, you get people who will believe almost anything. That, and occasionally mental illness, is why you get people who will believe in lizard people who run the world, flat earths, and so on, not because of singular examples of wide scale government fraud.

Armstrong's point isn't that the government would never try to defraud its citizens, and I think it's a stretch to mold his argument into that. His point is that it would be impossible to hold over 400,000 people to the same lie, without anyone breaking. Bush's WMD claims had plenty of people contradicting it at the time, and has been completely debunked now, unlike the moon landing that happened 50 years ago.

There's intelligent skepticism, and then there's skepticism for the sake of skepticism. It's not that hard to tell apart the Galileos from the Kyrie Irvings. Skeptics deserve legal protections, but they don't deserve attention if they say things like the Earth is flat.

The WMD claim had plenty of holes poked through it even at the time. There were constant stories making it clear the inspectors in Iraq were not finding anything, and whistle blowers like Valerie Plame who directly contradicted the White House claims. Today, less than twenty years later, it's no longer a question that there weren't any WMDs. The fraud Armstrong is pointing out isn't really comparable.

This isn't true. Both Bush and Obama were criticized for them (probably other Presidents as well, I just wasn't following politics before then). But that's not what your original statement said:

> And you can thank the previous guy in charge for setting this precedent, that you can do whatever you want via Executive Order.

That statement is just pure bias, not fact.

The article says 17 employees opened the link, and 10 of those types in their credentials. The 20% the headline is talking about are those 10, not the 7 that didn't do anything.

Is your company private? If you're not heavily funded by investors you probably have more freedom to behave according to your morals than if it were otherwise. Public companies are always looking to meet shareholder expectations on the other hand.

Not saying they can't occasionally make altruistic decisions like this, just that more people's interests are being weighed.

I'm very weary of resistor self-reported "data points". They don't often reflect real life for most people, or worse, don't even reflect really even for the commentor. I seriously doubt the person saying he makes $35-$40 an hour doing uber eats is any sort of real average even for him. On top of that a thread like that is more motivating to respond to for people who want to give a "fuck you" to Amazon or who want to brag about their profits than it is for the average driver.

The department of justice has limited resources. It's impossible to go after literally every case of fraud, "all the time". Law enforcement is always picking and choosing what to target, and this guy advertising a coronavirus cure at this current time is like shooting off a flair in the dark asking to be noticed.

The author briefly touches on preventing the technique by disabling third party cookies, so yes, it's probability that.

> Having tried several solutions, I came to the conclusion that blocking third party cookies is the best mitigation for clickjacking.

He doesn't claim he gets it all from Google though.

>Ad click data is in aggregate. Google doesn’t provide marketers like me with your personal identifiers. This means that even with all of the data we get when you click, Google will never provide us with your name, email, or phone number.

>But there’s an easy way around this: through a call-tracking software that anyone buying Google Ads can use. It’s called Callrail and costs only $45 a month.

>By syncing Google Ads with Callrail, your name and address is tied to your click (and all your other data) when you conduct a certain action on a website that an ad directs to. (Clicking a phone number on the website, for example).

>Callrail provides marketers the data that Google would never dare to.

I'm not sure if that's what the person I was asking meant by "general agenda", considering the change you're talking about (Manifest v3) doesn't even affect Brave[0], or any other Chromium based browser that simply doesn't wish to implement that specific change. Chromium based browsers change their code all the time, and decide whether or not incoming changes will be fully adopted by their browser themselves.

[0]https://twitter.com/flamsmark/status/1088170219695071232?s=0...

What do you mean by "general agenda"?

You're talking in generalities. Even if it's not the majority of people, some people will change their lifestyles, or at least parts of it (buying eco friendly cars, using less AC, eating less meat, etc.) But in general, you're right, most people won't do enough. That's why there need to be institutional changes, like investments into green energy/tech and incentives for companies to pollute less.

> Facebook, the platform, is in trouble.

Sadly this isn't true at all. They've been posting record profits and growth all year. Just yesterday they posted their third quarter results, where their sales rose 29% and user base increased by 35 million, including by 3 million in North America [0], despite negative news surrounding them all year. Most people simply don't care, or care enough to actually delete their accounts over these things.

[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-30/facebook-...

The article gives a good reason for why it works in Taiwan, despite its problems:

> Taiwan’s high-speed rail system proved reliably profitable — and popular, with 64 million riders last year.

Aside from talking about the (potential) cost, you didn't make any other point for why there shouldn't be a HSR. It's fine if you don't think we should have one because it's becoming too expensive, but I don't see any argument for why it wouldn't be useful.

"Read one's opponents" isn't about reading a person's soul sitting across from you. That whole aspect of poker of picking up tells plays a much smaller role than simply understanding what hands your opponent is likely to have in each possible specific situation or knowing your opponents playing tendencies, such as how frequently do they raise, call, fold, and in what cases would they do those actions. Tells can still be important but most experienced players will have learned to control their emotions to the point where it's far more reliable to rely on your understanding of the game than to rely on some psychological meaning behind someone splitting an Oreo cookie before making a decision.

As far as computing "large factorials and binomial coefficients in their heads", I don't know what makes you think that that's what poker math entails. It's nearly all just basic statistics.

You only have a point if you're someone who believes climate change isn't happening. Otherwise switching the words around as you did only shows how ridiculous opposite side is.

You're right, and the comment from the article is definitely over the top. My only point is that sadly people would still be denying climate change no matter how perfectly presented the warnings are, and there's an obvious frustration, even anger, aimed at those responsible for this.

That's not at all why global warming deniers exist. The reason they exist is because the fossil fuel industry managed to make believing in climate change a political issue rather than a scientific one, which is why the denial is embraced by one party but not the other. The actual "arguments" don't matter, this one especially since it's impossible to tell if Dorian would've even existed or not had the climate not changed.

110 years in the past is insignificant relative to a planet's geological period's age.

> But the trend is clear: Renewable energy will continue to eclipse coal in future months as more wind and solar farms are deployed, EIA’s forecasts show.