ChairmanMeow

joined 1 year ago
[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

America would have likely joined the war regardless of whether or not Japan had attacked.

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Business also managed just fine before social media advertising was a thing.

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Nothing lasts forever. But for now, it's decent enough.

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I haven't found a story that doesn't use Reason as their source. I only found one that tried to contact the police department for comment, but they hadn't responded.

So we do still only have one truly distinct account of this story, which is the mom's side of the ordeal.

Virality and outrage don't make a story more accurate.

We don't know why the woman who encountered the boy on the road called the police. We don't know what the kid was doing at the time. Was he walking to the side of the road? Was he walking on the road? Did he seem "off" in some way that made it so that the woman called the police? Were there previous warnings that that road was dangerous?

Police set up a safety plan for the son, that involved making sure someone always knew where he was. Why was that done? Multiple people in the PD all looked at the case and decided this was the right course of action, why?

I'll judge once I hear what the police says their motivations were. They could have well stepped over the line here. Or there were legitimate concerns for the child's safety.

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm surprised to hear GIMP crashed on you, I don't think I've ever had it crash on me.

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 30 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

They are pedophiles. I know it's a wild thing to state but I don't like pedophiles.

This makes sense and all, but a pedophile who hasn't harmed a child hasn't caused any harm. These people have a disorder that should be treated, but this isn't always easy. If this can give them some outlet that prevents any actual harm being done to children, then that can easily be argued to be a net positive.

I prefer these people jack off to AI porn over real child porn or worse, them turning to actual sexual abuse of children. What's wrong with preventing child abuse?

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 30 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Do you have any research that backs this up? Because there is research that claims the opposite and that this can work as a preventative measure.

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Our company has directly profited from a competitor that leaked sensitive data, because some of their large corporate customers decided to switch to us.

Business don't like being on the receiving end of a data leak either you know.

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 7 points 2 weeks ago

I think you're being too pessimistic about IT security, particularly in the Financial sector. A lot of the security rules and audits aren't even government-run, it's the sector regulating itself. And trust me, they are pretty thorough and quite nitpicky about stuff.

The cost of failing an audit also often isn't even a fine, it's direct exclusion from a payment scheme. Basically, do it right or don't do it at all. Given that that is a strict requirement for staying in business, most of these companies will have sufficiently invested in IT security.

Of course it's not airtight, no system really is. But particularly in the financial sector most companies really do have their IT security in order.

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 9 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

That's not entirely true. In order to be allowed to keep processing transactions you have to adhere to strict rules which do get regularly audited. And then there's the whole "customers will switch to another more reliable party in case of outages or security problems". And trust me, I've seen first-hand that they do.

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 18 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Not Tesla though, it relies on cameras only.

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 1 points 4 weeks ago

Except the part where it said downloading videos is against their terms of service? Which was my only point?

Did you completely fail to read the part "except where authorized"? That bit of legalese is a blanket "you can't use this software in a way we don't want to".

You physically cannot download files to a browser. A browser is a piece of software. It does not allow you to download anything

Ah, you just have zero clue what you're talking about, but you think you do. I can point out exactly where you are on the Dunning-Kruger curve.

This is such a wild conversation and ridiculous mental gymnastics. I think we're done here.

Hilarious coming from you, who has ignored every bit of information people have thrown at you to get you to understand. But agreed, this is not going anywhere.

view more: next ›