gold checkmark identifying that the account belongs to a verified brand.
Blue checkmark and gold checkmark are different things.
gold checkmark identifying that the account belongs to a verified brand.
Blue checkmark and gold checkmark are different things.
But the other side of that is no political accountability. There’s no risk of punishment, so why should they care? Insider trading, corruption, nepotism, general lying, acting in bad faith, and intentionally misrepresenting facts to disrupt useful debate.
Politicians get away with all of that and more, and get paid massive amounts of money, above and below the table, while they do it.
It’s so weird to me, what do they expect to happen to the economy of their state when their workforce has such a poor education?
-50% ad revenue says otherwise
One of the topics I’ve seen become more prevalent in recent years is the idea of limiting your use of privacy addons and softwares, with the aim of trying to prevent your fingerprint becoming too unique.
For example, there are probably a billion users with 21 inch monitors, running Windows 11, browsing on Google Chrome. Providing them with that information just makes you one more in the bunch, but if you stack up privacy addons you end up creating a more easily identifiable picture of yourself through the hole you created by hiding information.
It would be interesting to see exactly how Meta is managing to block VPN users. Is it simply a matter of looking up instagram or facebook account related to email addresses used to sign up? Is it evaluating some sort of browser fingerprint? That’s assuming VPN users are doing so via desktop, if it’s an Android device for example is the OS itself providing information that’s not getting obfuscated by the VPN?
This is the issue with the new “own nothing, subscription only” and “if you’re not the customer, you’re the product” type models. Everyone went to Threads to take a look at the brand new thing, but now everyone has seen the new thing they’re gone.
All the hype that was built up initially based on that curiosity comes across as arrogance and empty promises as users inevitably get bored of the new shiny thing that’s really just another attempt to harvest them for their metadata and ad-sense.
This isn’t the exact recipe for OPs mushrooms, but I have a similar recipe:
Bacon lardons, challot, garlic, red wine, parsley, button mushrooms.
Peel and slice the challot, add to hot oiled pan with bacon and garlic. Once they’re softened/sizzling turn heat down to medium, optionally add splash of red wine and stir in, then add mushrooms. Stir to coat, cook until ready, add shredded parsley on top.
Can be turned in to a full meal by adding fresh cream and cheese to create a sauce, add another ingredient (I like to pre-cook courgette or sausage and slice them up), and then stir in your pasta of choice. And of course season to perfect it.
But it’s definitely only part of the solution, that alone is not enough, but nothing else will have a strong effect while so many guns are on the streets and easily accessible.
No I didn’t, I think I was pretty clear. We need to reduce the number of guns available, nothing else will be effective until we do. I do believe any solution that does not involve removing guns at some point is incomplete. But removing guns on its own is not enough.
Yes, technically weapons are tools
Again, I’m not arguing a gun isn’t a tool. In fact, in the very comment you’re replying to I said they are.
But all of this is besides the actual point, you derailed the point of gun culture and availability driving gun violence with an ultimately meaningless conversation about semantics.
Yes, technically weapons are tools, that’s because the definition of a tool is so broad, just a device used to carry out a particular task.
That’s why I never said he was wrong to call a gun a tool, I said it was misleading, which it is. When a reasonable person thinks of a tool they do not think of a gun, you think of a wrench or a screwdriver or a swiss army knife, or something like that.
Calling a gun a tool is intentionally misleading. A gun’s sole purpose is as a weapon, using it any other way is a misuse of that “tool”. Whereas knives have various practical purposes. Which was obviously the purpose of my initial reply.
In some cases, yes, having a gun is entirely legitimate (assuming used safely) such as protection from dangerous wildlife. But the number of legitimate cases does not even come close to justifying the number of guns, or the gun culture, in America. Violence doesn’t happen in a vacuum, the presence of guns, the acceptance of gun culture, and the normalization of gun violence are things that contribute to the frequency of gun crime.
The removal of guns, and restricting of them to legitimate use cases IS dealing with the underlying social issues. But it’s definitely only part of the solution, that alone is not enough, but nothing else will have a strong effect while so many guns are on the streets and easily accessible.
Yeah man, let me just get my kitchen gun or my box shooter or my letter pistol.
Oh wait, sorry, it’s not guns I’m thinking of that has many completely harmless uses, it’s knives!
Add on top of the nature of these ultra capitalist worldwide corporations, even if they were able to mass produce this affordably that would mean decommisioning tens of millions in already existing production infrastructure. Why would they do that when they can delay next gen tech for greater profit?
Although it may very well be caused by Twitter running out of money, which would be corroborated by Twitter’s lack of payment to various other parties. Giving Musk three options: Use more of his own money, admit defeat and massively scale back Twitter’s functionality and availability, or try to scam money out of other people.
Clearly he’s not willing to spend his own money, or admit failure.
Interesting, isn’t it? When you have a problem with Twitter they send you a poop emoji, but when Twitter has a problem they fire off a cease-and-desist within hours. Elon is the perfect capitalist.
It’s also really weird. Elvis was around to see The Who, Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones, AC/DC, Jimi Hendrix, Queen, and technically Sex Pistols too although that was towards the end of his life.
Point is, he should have known about much “worse” musicians and music than The Beatles.
Sounds to me like there’s now a legal precedent for me to leave people on read.
It seems like their economy is reliant on a series of short term fixes, and as each one winds down another bigger one needs to take its place.
12% interest is another example of this, it will improve things in the short term but has no effect on the underlying problems, meaning that in a couple of months or so something even more drastic will be needed.