l23k4

Those poor pension funds, unable to make their own decisions. Forced to keep all of their money in $NDX forever.

It must be terrible to be so utterly powerless.

What are you even trying to say? Where does the taxman enter into this?

What thievery happens in the stock market?

It's the way they acted after they became aware of the problem that makes them look cartoonishly evil.

How do you suppose those would prove your point?

Do you live in a cave? I guess not.

Do you have access to the internet? Seemingly yes.

The booms just tend to be much bigger than the busts.

I'm not saying the Tate specifically encouraged people to take pictures of those flats.

I'm saying the Tate encouraged people to take pictures of those flats. They put up a viewing platform where the flats were one of the main events.

The cost-benefit ratio of using VMs over containers is very high. You trade negligible overhead for an actual security boundary.

Containers don't provide good isolation and tend to be trivial to break out of.

> That entirely depends on one's threat-model

I think not, virtualization has such low overhead now that there's just no excuse. It's generally trivial to switch from containers to VMs.

Using containers as a security boundary is inexcusable.

Why did Tate not reach out to the apartment owners and pay for privacy film installation before they opened the viewing platform?

The museum only decided to start encouraging the egregious behavior after the flats were built. The museum knew the egregious behavior by their guests was taking place and did not intervene until forced to do so by the courts.

I really don't see how you can read through the court judgements and not arrive at the conclusion that the Tate just really went out of their way to look cartoonishly evil.

I have to agree with rjjejriridd on this one, despite their inappropriate tone.

Everyone knows "open to public" does not mean that you can operate a lemonade stand or conduct a professional photoshoot.

Of course it's on the museum, this was an entirely predictable outcome.

> the prohibition of "professional" photography equipment

You want endless influencer photoshoots with professional lighting setups and whatnot?

>I'm looking at the pictures in this article and that doesn't seem egregious: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-64481260

That's just a function of the lenses being used. The distance is 34 metres, you could see very well into the flats.

I've been on the viewing platform, you had a very good view into the rather nice looking flats. Most people who came on the platform spent a good chunk of time staring at those flats, because they happen to be one of the more interesting things to view from the platform.

You might be surprised to find out how few people on the very progressive r/london subreddit were upset by this supreme court decision, probably because they were actually familiar with the situation: https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/10qqey4/flat_owners...

> Isn't it on the individuals occupying the apartment to use curtains of some sort if they don't want to be seen?

Sure, but the problem here was explicitly not the individuals occupying the apartments being seen.

>Unless I'm missing context the museum didn't organize tour groups to specially look into the apartments

From the court ruling: "Visitors in the viewing gallery frequently look into the claimants' flats and take photographs, and less frequently view the claimants and their flats with binoculars."

"Photographs of the flats are posted on social media by visitors. On the platform Instagram there were 124 posts in the period between June 2016 and April 2018"

I do not think it's acceptable to subject anyone to this, be they rich or poor.

I don't mind people seeing into my flat. I would very much mind the specific, egregious behaviour described in the court case.

> If you don’t want public to see in your house don’t live next to a museum?

That's simply not what the court case was about. I pasted a bit from the ruling in a sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48345234

I didn't know they had instagram and smartphones back then, those were key elements here.

This was a decision made by five supreme court justices in a 3/2 split, do you have any particular reason to believe there has been corruption involved in this UK litigation?

There's also essentially zero overlap between the people who complain about knife crime, and the people who encounter knife crime in London.

If I secretly hide a camera in your bedroom, would the violation of privacy be made more egregious if I then went ahead and broadcast that footage on TV?

>Isn’t it just you have a window to look in or not? And every building has windows to look in if you choose to not draw the blinds?

For example, there would be a pretty big difference between my neighbour being able to see into my apartment and my neighbour organising tour groups to look into my apartment.

I don't mind my neighbour, it is reasonable to expect that my neighbours will be able to see into my apartment. I however could not reasonably expect that my neighbours would host some sort of organised viewing activity on a regular basis.

Yes? That wasn't the complaint.

Do you have 20+ people looking into your home all day long, taking photos and posting them on instagram?

  Visitors in the viewing gallery frequently look into the claimants' flats and take
  photographs, and less frequently view the claimants and their flats with binoculars.
  Photographs of the flats are posted on social media by visitors. On the platform
  Instagram there were 124 posts in the period between June 2016 and April 2018. It has
  been estimated that those posts reached an audience of 38,600. Mann J found that
  there was a significant number of people using the viewing gallery who demonstrated
  a visual interest in the interiors of the flats, including by looking, peering in, taking
  photographs and waving to the occupants. He accepted that their numbers and the
  level of interest were such that a homeowner would reasonably regard this as intrusive
  so far as the use of the south side of the viewing gallery was concerned (by contrast,
  the western side of the viewing gallery is at an oblique angle to the flats, offering only
  a limited view into them).

(This goes on and on, and at no point does it sound any better for Tate)

Come on, this was just gross by Tate and the supreme court was right to put a stop to it. I visited the extension before it opened, it was obvious this was going to be a problem.

A busy viewing terrace is not an ordinary use of space, building one looking right into private homes isn't cool regardless of how wealthy the residents of those homes are.

>I think that is no longer true and maybe this decision by Denmark is a data point of how the Nordics are changing?

No, this is just standard pension fund governance.

This is maybe sort of true, but few garments that say "dry clean only" actually need to be dry cleaned. This has typically more to do with laziness on the part of the manufacturers.

Things like lining, interfacing and structure are often strong indicators that a garment actually has to be dry-cleaned. I think those are at best only very slightly more common in women's casual clothing.

> I have a coat that is the best of both worlds, loden with a Gore-Tex membrane.

Until the goretex delaminates and becomes impossible to repair, of course.

SandboxEscaper and Nightmare Eclipse both explicitly deny this, but I'm pretty sure they're the same person.

The style is the same, and it appears that SandboxEscaper has previously been fired by MSFT. (they are not dead) https://github.com/BigPolarBear1/The_story

SandboxEscaper, who has not really been very active online, started blogging again right before NightmareEclipse showed up. They've been offering to sell Microsoft related bugs. https://weirdquadratic.blogspot.com

OTOH, there's evidence against my theory in the form of prior tweets by the "ChaoticEclipse0" account, which include references to their age and writing in Moroccoan Darija https://x.com/ChaoticEclipse0/status/1332337678470291459

The twitter account was silent between aug 17 2023 and apr 3 2026, so it's not necessarily the same person using it anymore.

LLM written.

See the authors twitter, he speaks english at a rather basic level and certainly did not write this https://x.com/mohitgeryani/with_replies