Stop letting your cats outside unsupervised you fucking dimwits.
Every time I see a “missing outdoor cat” sign in my neighborhood, I want you to know that I see it like putting out a “missing outdoor balloon” sign after releasing a balloon into the sky.
Something is “eating the cats” and it’s the front fender of trucks, and the local predators.
You can’t spy on our citizens, that’s our (and our corporations’) job!
Signed, the US Government
I’d rather they just ban spy apps in general…but that’s a “dream a little dream, it’s never gonna happen” type of thing.
Yes, I understand your point and agree with you for the most part.
I feel like there was a turning point in the Internet though, where the federation of user identities basically ended for most Internet users. I track it to the advent of MySpace and Facebook. People started using their actual identities on these sites (most likely, at first, to attempt to get laid), and our privacy began being flushed down the toilet then. I also think the creation of Google Chrome with Google’s all-consuming want for private data and to tie all of your Internet activity to a real person had a big hand in this as well. The modern Internet is a surveillance Internet.
As the article states, it’s no longer true that “on the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog”. They hook you to your actual physical identity the instant you do anything on your phone, search using a logged in account, browse one of their sites with your logged in cookie, or generally browse anything after you’ve touched any of the major social media sites because they added trackers to everything.
In some ways, this is beneficial because many cannot handle anonymity, but the bad parts of the Internet have largely drowned out the good. As the Internet has scaled, more and more of the bad side of humanity is reflected digitally. To add to that mix, the major sites in their fun house mirror algorithms supposedly designed to amplify engagement (or “enragement algorithms” as I sometimes say) constantly amplify items posted by the most degenerate among us.
However Lemmy is still way bigger than what a mid 90s experience with the internet would be.
IRC was a ghost town the last time I checked in on it. In the mid-90s there were constantly thousands of people on it.
Ah, gotcha, TIL about that.
He was invited to give a speech from the bushes.
You’re an idiot.
George Will can eat shit.
So, we’re not doing Section 230 anymore ?
That’s a part of a US law, and as such doesn’t throw a shrimp on the bar-b in Australia, mate.
all you’re doing is feeding those Green voters into the non-voting demographic.
What’s your proof of this claim?
(Succession)
Laura Loomer is Trump’s Kerry Castellabate, now all we have to do is hope that not wearing the compression socks on flights in order to impress her takes him down like it did Logan Roy.
I agree partially, but he also did reasonably well perception wise against Hillary Clinton. I understand that she was kind of wooden, and that she is very much not a gifted orator, and that she had 30 years of media hatred beamed directly at her, but there were a lot of people saying the debates were going to be a blowout against Trump and they never were.
Harris worked her strategy in the debate nearly perfectly. She told the audience what they were going to see before they saw it (a hostile, out of touch, out of control liar), and later referred back to what she said when he became exactly that.
Hillary had canned lines like “A person who can be baited with a tweet should not have control of the nuke codes”, but she was telling instead of showing.
Kamala told the audience exactly what to expect, laid the bait out for him and completely knocked him off message, and then when the buffoonery arrived she pointed out that there he was, exactly as characterized. She showed everyone how easy it was to rile him up instead of just telling them, and by the ending portion where she was saying things similar to “Putin would eat you for lunch” and “strongmen want you to win because you’re weak and easily manipulated” it was clear that she was correct even to audience members who had no additional context about Trump.
Kamala told the audience what to expect and then demonstrated to them that what she was saying was accurate.
It wasn’t just anyone that could’ve executed this strategy so brilliantly against Trump. Many others have tried, and although I think most people suspected it would be possible to bring Trump the miserable, angry racist couch potato up onto the stage during a debate, we got only a tiny glimpse of it during a debate once before (when Trump had active COVID).
Despite it looking easy to manipulate him on a stage, in actuality I think it is pretty difficult to not get sucked into the non-sense vortex when someone’s feet away from you spewing out vile bullshit, and Harris was the first one to be able to not only trigger a storm exactly on cue, but also stand back calmly, get out of the way of the swirling debris, and stay focused on what she wanted to communicate with the audience.
It is amazing to me that these assholes will say “thoughts and prayers” or completely deny that things happened when it comes to schoolchildren being murdered in their classrooms, but expect people to be filled with righteous anger when it comes to brown people entering the country. If school shootings are a “fact of life” in America, assuredly immigration is a “fact of life” here…and it is one that has the advantage of being beneficial to the country.
Another thing that irritates me is that these babbling gobs (and particularly this caricaturistic, flanderized bobble head) prevent actual debate around how immigration should function in this country…ensuring that we will continue to be told by the media that there are only two positions on immigration: become a country that nobody new can enter even as we dwindle in population and inventiveness, or have “open borders” that allow absolutely anyone into the country.
I know the reality is that the Democratic party has nuanced positions on asylum and immigration, but the straw man position the Republicans keep insisting Democrats have completely chokes the public discourse to death leaving us continually discussing the two “options”, and thanks I fucking hate it.
He has concepts of a plan.
It’s deleted
Frank Costanza: Let me understand, you got the hen, the chicken and the rooster. The rooster goes with the chicken. So, who’s having sex with the hen?
George Costanza: Why don’t we talk about it another time.
Frank Costanza: But you see my point here? You only hear of a hen, a rooster and a chicken. Something’s missing!
Mrs. Ross: Something’s missing all right.
Mr. Ross: They’re all chickens. The rooster has sex with all of them.
Frank Costanza: That’s perverse.
Oh come on, that’d expose them to actual risk from their neighbors who likely don’t share their views, and they surely cannot do that. Except when they become ungovernable when things get worse partially because of their vote, and then they’ll magically be capable of winning a revolution or whatever.
What would make me think that they haven’t “thoroughly dissected” it yet is that I’m a skeptic, and since I’m a skeptic I don’t immediately and without evidence believe that every industry is capable of identifying, dissecting, and solving every problem with its products.