sadly, no. Anticheat Systems are designed to be paranoid as fuck. So even some readout of the hardware used that WINE handles a tad differently than Windows might trip it.

Sad that things like “checking the address, date and if the fucking thing is signed at fucking all” are necessary. The keepers of justice and public order must be held to a higher standard than everybody else. They have to be the beacon that shows the rest of us what justice and order look like. Instead, mistaken loyalty by DAs and courts have eroded this sentiment to a farce. They are allowed to lie to your face, they are allowed to take your shit and accuse your shit itself of crimes. They are allowed to shoot dogs without any indication of the dog being aggressive. They are also allowed to bust into the wrong house, shoot the dog, traumatize everyone, drag people to the street, imprison them with force, and then notice that they had the wrong house. The last one carries a severe penalty for them, I know. They have to say “Whoopsie doopsie” afterward.

I really have a hard time deciding if that is the scandal the article makes it out to be (although there is some backpedaling going on). The crucial point is: 8% of the decisions turn out to be wrong or misjudged. The article seems to want us to think that the use of the algorithm is to blame. Yet, is it? Is there evidence that a human would have judged those cases differently? Is there evidence that the algorithm does a worse job than humans? If not, then the article devolves onto blatant fear mongering and the message turns from “algorithm is to blame for deaths” into “algorithm unable to predict the future in 100% of cases”, which of course it can’t…

Oh by Zeus,.may the gods have mercy for I have none.

I refuse to read anything after the headline to keep my blood below boiling point. Did I miss anything?

Thats the issue. Not only with poverty, but with overspending in general. Usually, money savin measures take time to become noticeable, since there is always some inertia in money flows (things that were already die when the saving measures were started, subscriptions, etc), so people who overspent will immediately see a drastic downfall of their living standards when they start saving, but still overshoot their budget for at least a few weeks usually, until all the overspending is paid off and the savings start to kick in. That’s a really dangerous phase because people often struggle to understand if they are doing it right or not.

So, we take the magazine diet of the month approach yet again? Instead of learning healthy spending habits, we barge in with the extremest measures we can find, inevitably fail and try the next needlessly extreme thing, repeating the cycle until we have lost so much self esteem in the process that we tell ourselves that we just aren’t made to save money?

Well then, this website over there told me that they have got shiny new shirts reduced from 1899,- to just 15 bucks, but only if I order 65 of them in the next.two minutes. Take my credit card! I’ll start no spending year right after! Pinky promise!

Especially with such careless failures. If some employee was tricked through a well-planned social engineering attack, or they used some mega obscure day0 vulnerability, I’d not be happy, but shit happens, I guess. But not sending my phone number when someone just posts some GET command to an API should be a no-brainer…

It’s always funny to see how inept and childish those companies seem when regulatory bodies don’t just stop pursuing them after their first haphazard attempt to circumvent the rules.

“On this puppet, can you show the court where the borg queen touched you?”

Norgur and what the fuck at Tanagra!

So we’re doing Meta Book Bans now?

Dmarc/dkim/SPF/certs. Fun times!

I got a mall server running, yet it’s almost more as an inbox.

What is it with people who condemn anything fun in “serious” communities? Whether you comment a joke in a news community or post a joke guide in a guide community, people will get angry because someone tried to make them laugh. Why? Can’t we let the people giggling giggle and scroll past?

So, are we done berating everybody passive-aggressively with just a sprinkle of condescension? Because maybe, just maybe, I was making a remark about the general practice of Microsoft to hide stuff behind nondescript bullshit names (especially in non-English versions where the English bullshit name gets translated literally most of the time, which yields even more nondescript results).

Maybe, just maybe, you chose the wrong comments to act up on “PeOpLe NoT rEaDiNg ThE aRtIcLe” when all that was posted about was inconsequential stuff about the precise clicks needed to turn a feature off that’s not even in the respective menus yet. So this is not someone talking bullshit because they misunderstood the headline about a murder case or something.

All that was said was about practices Microsoft has abused into oblivion: Hiding stuff behind obscure menus and hiding stuff behind obscure names. The comments made were a persiflage of exactly that.

Maybe, just maybe, the precise placement and wording in a menu that doesn’t even exist yet is a topic inconsequential enough that people will not read the tenth article about the general subject (Copilot becoming “opt-in”) to make sure they wouldn’t miss this super irrelevant point to the story. A point which you guessed from screenshots that haven’t reached production yet (even if they are likely to go into production as shown, it can still change), so your condescending attitude is based on wobbly grounds.

There are tons of articles where people post absolutely wrong and quite absurd stuff because they didn’t read the article. Some of them even matter (politics, world events). So let’s criticize people when they don’t read through actually important articles before posting, and agree that it’s okay to not read the exact article posted on unimportant sidenote stuff if one knows about the thing in general. Because if I’d be only allowed to comment on the article posted itself, I wouldn’t need Lemmy, I could just comment on the site that posted the article in the first place.

Besides: You did notice that you commented on two different people, yes? Because you sure sounded like you didn’t read the usernames before commenting and thought you always replied to the same guy.

And even if you find it, it will have an idiotic and obscure name, like “advanced history experience” or something absolutely nondescript

Yeah. Never thought I’d see the day when Tidal was cheaper than crappy Spotify.

Arch users, assemble!

Forgive them. They aren’t used to choosing their browser yet.