These scams are effective because of a thing called Amygdala hijack which
"is an emotional response that is immediate, overwhelming, and out of measure with the actual stimulus because it has triggered a much more significant emotional threat."
You can get any human to do dumb things if you can by-pass their logical brain and have them work off the lizard brain.
I can see a future where the Internet is completely run by bots and AI to the point where no human actually uses the Internet anymore.
It's like an island that gets overrun with rats - there are just too many to deal with so you leave.
It sets both the technical requirements and recommended best practices for determining the validity of methods used to authenticate digital identities online. Organizations that interact with the federal government online are required to be in compliance
My argument is that if this document (and others) are requirements for companies shouldn't there also be a more approachable document for people to use?
Sure, have the jargon filled document that those in the know can access, but without an additional not so jargon-y document you've just added a barrier to change. Maybe just an abstract of the rule changes on the front page without the jargon?
I don't know, maybe it's not a big deal to compliance officers but just seems to me (someone that isn't a compliance officer) that obfuscating the required changes behind jargon and acronyms is going to slow adoption of the changes.
from the site: "Discover a world of immersive and customizable soundscapes that can enhance focus, relaxation, and sleep. Choose from noise generators, nature sounds and ambient music to create your perfect audio environment."
This is what fucked Bernie Madoff.
If this person had gone to VC's with a pitch for 'AI listening model' with the explanation that "Now musicians can up load their songs to streaming services and AI will listen to make sure their pitch and tonality is accurate and that the beat is correct." or some bullshit like that. Then it would have been 'legal'
Well maybe not other examples, but my comment was more along the lines that I think that we (modern humans) idealize hunter-gathers. When what was probably more reality was that they had difficult times as well. That is wasn't a utopia by any means. I would say that agriculture and animal domestication came out of a need to reduce the task of having to hunt down your food.
If you get to just walk out of your hut and harvest plants or you don't have to run down a wild pig, instead just butcher one in the pen you're going to do that. But the downside then is you need to spend more time tending to the animals and plants to make sure they survive. So you give up some downtime.
I'm sure they also had community infighting, gossiping, feelings of unfairness, jealousy etc. You know like all humans in all parts of history.
They also had a short lifespan where a broken leg, bad tooth or infected cut could kill you. Not to take away from what you wrote but to add that it probably wasn't as ideal of a life as we may think.
True. But the people advocating for these laws don't want to deal with nuance and compromise on what it would take to have a society where you educate people on sex in a healthy and positive way. These prohibitionists see the world as either bad or good - nothing in between. Good (how ever they decide to define it) must win no compromises, and the weapon that they use is unfounded fear of the bad and it works.
And the reason fear works is because it is easy and visceral and reality's complexity doesn't work for media's need for sound bites.
At least nothing like this happens in the airline industry
but now we have a scapegoat
To take a side route and just say that I agree that Bush deserves the hatred for his actions and decisions but I think the evil moniker should be place on the chest of Cheney and Rumsfeld. Bush was just a weak President that allowed those two to call the shots.
... or maybe customers don't have much of a choice ?