Strip any tracking parameters you spot before following any URLs.
If it’s one of these QR codes at a restaurant for ordering, the parameters could possibly be necessary to properly connect your order to your table, depending on how they’re set up.
Formerly /u/Zagorath on the alien site.
Strip any tracking parameters you spot before following any URLs.
If it’s one of these QR codes at a restaurant for ordering, the parameters could possibly be necessary to properly connect your order to your table, depending on how they’re set up.
I have no idea what the law is in India, but if he got a “hacking” charge for this it would be a gross miscarriage of justice, considering he never once did anything resembling social engineering, brute forcing passwords, any sort of injection attack, or anything else that might actually be involved in hacking.
However, assuming he never tried to reach out to the company themselves first (and I saw no indication in the article that he had), this is really quite a horrible irresponsible disclosure. It’s pretty obviously a significant leak of sensitive data—both customer and business data—and giving them 90 days to fix it before alerting the public to what you found is pretty basic security ethics.
I can’t see any reasonable explanation for Korea and Japan not being the same category.
A century or so of oppressed masses and greedy elites did it.
True, and that’s important context if you’re trying to get a deeper understanding of how Julius Caesar came to have the power he held before his assassination.
But there’s enough of a problem you can see even if you just start at Julius, which is what I was concentrating on in my previous comment. The parallels to Trump are terrifyingly on the nose.
It literally was though. Not a military intelligence tool, but a big business intelligence one.
Niantic was founded by Google and their first product, Field Trip, and their first game, Ingress (a much better-designed game than Pokémon Go, btw) were pretty obviously about gaining geolocation data for Google to improve their products like Maps and Shopping.
Honestly I’m a light hobbyist myself. My exposure to history is primarily via YouTube channels like the excellent Historia Civilis (their series on Julius Caesar and the downfall of the Roman Republic is stunning) and via games like Age of Empires.
I just don’t understand how someone interested in antiquity can possibly fall for Trumpism. The fall of the Roman Republic was presaged by a guy literally trying to get elected to office so that he could escape prosecution for illegal abuses of power, and the legal system standing aside and saying “yeah, we’ll let you do that in order to maintain the peace” and then falling into civil war anyway.
How much of that sounds familiar…?
I’m confused, isn’t that just a two-step version of the link I provided?
“would” as in, “I would, if I could find one that isn’t insane”, or “would” as in “I have a plan and already know who I’m giving the position to and what position it is”?
CCTV produced an article asking “six shocking questions” about “US doping scandals.”
Hilarious, considering they had a known doper on their swimming team at the Olympics who was banned in 2014 and then banned again after destroying testing samples in 2018. Not sus at all…
Do you still play?
I mostly gave it up a long time ago, and have found it difficult to get back into any time I’ve tried. I miss the elegant simplicity of the 2013 version of the game, before all the complicated missions and minigames.
That’s a symbol I’ve not seen in a long time. A long time.
Ok follow-up. I just checked the programming.dev modlog and it looks the same as my instance modlog. I believe that they have been banned by your instance, and the way instance admin bans works is they are banned from showing up on your instance. So I can still see their comments, users of programming.dev can still see their comments, etc. Only sh.itjust.works users can’t see this user’s comments, and thus only sh.itjust.works’ modlog shows them as being banned.
The user was banned. Unfortunately banning someone automatically removes all of their comments. A major flaw in the design of this platform.
Even worse: banning seems to be very un-transparent in the modlog. The fact that their comments are removed is not reflected at all. And when I search for that user in my instance’s instance-wide modlog, the only thing that shows up is them being banned from three solarpunk communities for “genocide denial”:
Looking on your instance’s modlog is a little clearer in some ways, though it only shows 1 of those 3 community bans. There is also what looks like a site-wide ban, though it’s very unclear who gave that ban. Their own instance admins? Your instance admins? Programming.dev instance admins (the admins of the community in which they were posting)? The modlog doesn’t tell you.
Step 1: make voting compulsory
Step 2: move it to a weekend
Step 3: easy access to prepoll or postal voting for people who can’t make it on the official day
Bonus step: change voting system to IRV, or even better, to something proportional like MMP or STV
There you go. America has a functioning electoral system.
On my desktop I’ve currently got 4 windows with 101, 103, 17, and 191 tabs. Think it’s about 60 on my phone, and currently only about 30 on my tablet.
Hamas is the logical response of decades of Israeli policies
It would be bad enough if that were all. But it’s actually even worse. Israel directly aided Hamas because it helped destabilise Palestine’s more moderate leadership.
jfc do you have any idea how fast the web evolves? Firefox already struggles to keep up with changing web standards and operating system features. It took them until December 2019 to implement one particular feature Chrome had since 2010 with a vendor prefix and since early 2016 as a fully-released feature. It took them until 4 weeks ago to implement an OS feature that existed since 2019 and which Chrome added that same year, and Edge had by 2022 at the latest.
You cut their budget, they’ll necessarily lose developers. Yes, maybe they can minimise how many developers they lose by becoming more lean, but it’s a fantasy to think that becoming “more lean” could actually prevent them from losing paid developers. And any volunteer developers are also necessarily going to be spending less time and effort on their contributions than a full-time paid employee would.
Cut their budget by 86% and they go from “barely keeping up” to “utterly falling behind”.
The summary of the debate Wikipedians had:
This was a lengthy but actually quite straightforward discussion. There was a clear consensus from the beginning that the former title was not acceptable. From several suggestions, three plausible alternatives emerged:
- Option 1 Gaza genocide question
- Option 2 Gaza genocide accusation
- Option 3 Gaza genocide
The discussion ran for several weeks and was well-attended after being centrally advertised to all editors. The rough headcount in favour of each option was 23 for Option 1, 26 for Option 2, and 32 for Option 3. Few editors in favour of option 1 were strongly opposed to option 2 and vice-versa; amongst those that indicated support for both, the preference was generally for option 2. A fair number of comments in favour of options 1 and 2, but generally not option 3, were not policy-based (i.e. along the lines of “there is no Gaza genocide”) and the headcounts for those options should be down-weighted accordingly.
The main argument in favour of option 3 was that ‘Gaza genocide’ is reflective of the wording used by available reliable sources, and several editors presented detailed source analyses in support of this. This argument was contested but not convincingly rebutted. The main argument in favour of options 1 and 2 were that the unqualified use of the word ‘genocide’ in an article title, when the existence of a genocide is disputed, would violate Wikipedia’s neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, and specifically the principle that titles should be non-judgmentally descriptive. Editors in favour of option 3 countered that the source analysis supported ‘genocide’ as a neutral descriptor (and conversely that ‘accusation’ is non-neutral), and/or that the presence of a statement in an article title does not imply that the statement is factual.
Considering that option 3 had the most support by a clear margin, that the arguments in favour of this title generally had a stronger grounding in reliable sources, and that neither side achieved a consensus on the question of which title is favoured by WP:POVTITLE, I see a rough consensus that the title of this article should be Gaza genocide. – Joe (talk) 09:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy, but still, since this conclusion is couched in democratic terms, I think it’s worth engaging with it on that level. It’s not clear to me how those numbers—23/26/32—were arrived at. They mention some people were in favour of multiple options, are those numbers counting them twice, Approval Voting style? Or only taking what is perceived to be their absolute favourite, FPTP style? If the former, then this is very obviously the right decision, especially when you take into account that the poor arguments used were un-wikipedian and should be down-weighted. If the latter, it becomes much, much more difficult to justify through sheer numbers. As stated, options 1 and 2 experienced a lot of cross-support, and so in an imagined IRV vote you might end up with something like 49-32, a strong vote in favour of option 2. Maybe more like 45-33 if you consider some exhausted votes who really don’t want another option and some who even jump from 1 to 3. And less once you down-weight the un-wikipedian answers, but probably still not so much less unless that “down-weighting” is to 0. So justifying option 3 becomes comparatively difficult, purely as a numbers game.
But skimming through a few of the actual detailed responses, I didn’t see any opposition to option 3 that even vaguely stood up to scrutiny. Which makes sense, because it just says what all of us have been saying for months.
I never played Civ VI. Stuck with V instead. Though to be honest, what I really wish they would do is return to the cool alternate game modes that Civ II: Test of Time added. Being able to keep playing with a second playing arena after completing the ship to Alpha Centauri, or play an entirely different game of fantasy or science-fiction flavoured civ was really cool.