there is no perfectly secure system and defining everything as insecure is useless.
outside of english class "secure" is relative and context-dependent, not binary.
6,416 karma · joined February 20, 2026
outside of english class "secure" is relative and context-dependent, not binary.
that sums it up.
just for context, i am a teacher. i am speaking from my experience, not repeating a trope.
yeah, it was. and now it isn't.
this is known as a "turnaround".
this is very obviously untrue, as evidenced by no man's sky.
the game now has Y and Z. i did not purchase the game expecting those updates. i did not pay for those updates. so it seems completely reasonable to consider those updates to be free.
wording it as something i paid for when i didn't pushes the baseline towards dishonesty.
why scare quotes around for free? they were free.
>haven't addressed any of the core gameplay or emptiness issues people have with it.
i went from hating it to really enjoying it. i am not the only one.
>based on them staggering a few nonsense releases and being good on social media ad spends. The game is still bad and not worth the money.
my comment comes from my opinion and my experience, not social media. i think its a good game, and i would say it's absolutely worth the money.
i also happen to enjoy the game itself.
people love saying this as if its some sort of gotcha.
ive been campaigning for candidates i believe in since ive been able to vote, which is over 40 years now. additionally, i voice my opinion locally and online (hi).
which is something that only happens after abuse occurs, is costly (time and money), presents a risk of retaliation, and offers no guarantee of being made whole.
>What's the alternative to fixing this with laws/lawsuits?
not doing mass surveillance means we don't need legislation about it.
>Do we riot when "the police and governments break laws"?
why did you scare quote this?
>they can't be manipulated
if you want something that cant be manipulated or abused, the solution is technical, not legislative.
in either case, it really leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
pair 1: https://osf.io/d8f6m/files/yjahv
pair 2: https://osf.io/d8f6m/files/sjph3
pair 3: https://osf.io/d8f6m/files/4pfw3
if this is a response to "world is moving fast", i didn't mean "arithmetic is moving fast". i meant technology, the economy, geopolitics, etc. which inevitably changes the learning environment, the home environment, motivation, etc.
ideally, yes, enjoyment should be one purpose of school. it's much easier to teach when students are enjoying learning.
learning to engage with something that you don't enjoy is also important, though, and why i think some of "the classics" should still be required reading.
ive had to make pretty significant changes to my courses in the past two years. many teachers aren't, or are making changes slowly, which is causing some difficulty.
many of my college students feel like they've already lost at life. between ai, the economy, job prospects, etc. i am sure high schoolers are feeling the same way, which certainly isn't going to make them more eager.
when did they remove quick assist? i thought i used it recently (within a month or two), but maybe im misremembering. a quick google still shows it as available for home installs.
"CISA maintains the authoritative source of vulnerabilities that have been exploited in the wild."
i'm referring to the concept of intent, which at least when prosecuting under the US computer fraud and abuse act, is a critical component.
for example, creating a program that intentionally takes down a website is different than creating a program that has a bug which inadvertently takes down a website. in both cases, the person writing the code is responsible, but the consequences are different.
i don't really understand either take. nothing else in the world is so perfectly black or white. there will be good, there will be bad.
i think i especially dislike the "100% strictly negative" take, considering the good things that ai has already done or accelerated.
the HF incident is pretty clear in which laws were broken. this one, not so much.
i can't think of any case where, for example, malicious edits of wikipedia were prosecuted under any law in the US.
>Also when AI agents are set in motion to edit wikis
i do not believe there is evidence that the agents were instructed to edit the wikis.
exactly. the problem is the missing qualifying word.
when consumers say consent, it's almost always referring to informed consent.
when companies say consent, it's almost always referring to implied consent.