California is not Colorado nor is it federal. I don’t think you understand the things you’re saying since you don’t seem to grasp, as you put it, the regulations are “often state-specific.” You linked California, not Colorado, which this article is in reference to. Even in the beginning, you didn’t seem to grasp why regulation and some level of understanding about what people should or shouldn’t do is reasonable to have defined. Good luck!
In the US? I’m gonna need to see some statutes there bud. Last I checked there are no federal requirements and as far as I can tell there are only insurance requirements in Colorado at the moment.
See‽ Easy explanation. I get it, absolutely reasonable issues, and one of several areas Linux just isn’t great with. “Too many issues to explain here” doesn’t click with me.
This rings a little hollow to me. Most of the people I know that understand Linux can quickly summarize why they might not use it as their daily driver (eg staying on macOS for graphics/video or staying on Windows for desktop Word/Excel). If you can’t summarize that quickly, it really makes me wonder if you really understand it. I’m not trying to No True Scotsman my way around it; I really don’t understand.
OSINT off stuff like this includes
Privacy and social media are mutually exclusive. Find me a security expert that disagrees and I might change my mind. Right now you’re a random person on the internet, I’m a random person on the internet, and OSINT is real.
Privacy and social media are mutually exclusive. The ones you have linked are no exception. DD requires a phone number so I didn’t get any further. Minutiae has you taking photos and sending them to a centralized service. That’s not private. I don’t understand why you’d say that no is concerned about privacy with the implication that’s a bad thing then immediately recommend something as bad.
Consultancies don’t exist for improving companies; they exist to make the rich richer while giving some semblance of things like fiduciary duty.
Advanced tech? What advanced tech? People watching you on cameras? The highest rate of wake word false positives? Something else I’m too dumb to understand?
While I personally think a removal of encryption tends be on the other side of this conflict, I have been called a nonce several times by otherwise leftist folks because of my support for strong encryption(ie the only people who want encryption have something to hide ergo you’re a nonce). This is all anecdote so YMMV.
Jokes aside this is fucking rad and a continuation of great things from them. I really dread the day iFixit enshittifies.
As a hiring manager, I don’t give a shit about certs. AWS certs, for example, serve primarily as marketing material and free money. Soft skill certs like agile methodology (of which I have several) are equally bullshit in that everything is a pattern not a prescription yet many people miss that and shoot their teams in the foot. There are some security certs I do value, such as CISSP, because they can be required for certain industries and actually do carry some gravitas. Even those, though, aren’t necessarily valuable for the things I actually need my security folks to do.
I’d say the market is maybe 30/70 split with folks like me and ATS or idiot hiring managers thinking your ability to memorize the specific GCP settings no one uses will actually make you understand why prod blew up. I refuse to get any; I actively support my team getting them as long as they know what they’re getting into.
I use uBlock Origin to remove tracking. I also manually remove tracking. Privacy Badger is a tool that works to explicitly do this kind of tidying.
Your analogy doesn’t work at all.
If one of the core harms is the removal of income and tracking, ad blockers fall into this category. Ad blockers very explicitly remove these things. The harm is not “Honey stole my income” it’s “Honey removed my tracking and Honey added their tracking.” Read the Legal Eagle case.
I am genuinely concerned about this because Legal Eagle’s suit is directly tied to manipulating URLs and cookies. The suit, even with its focus on last click attribution, doesn’t make an incredibly specific argument. If Legal Eagle wins, this sets a very dangerous precedent for ad blockers being illegal because ad blockers directly manipulate cookies and URLs. I haven’t read the Gamer’s Nexus one yet.
Please note that I’m not trying to defend Honey at all. They’re actively misleading folks.
other given statements
Perhaps this is our fundamental misunderstanding! I am operating under these statements
P: I have nothing to hide Q: I should not be concerned about surveillance
In my opinion, everything after this is OP’s proof, ie we have no given statements ergo you calling out modus ponens is meaningless because, from our foundations, we could theoretically have ~P^Q, P^~Q, P^Q, and P^Q. Our foundation provides no context on how P and Q interact, and, as both of us state, albeit for different reasons, we cannot conclude anything about their interaction.
Sure! Let’s go back to foundations. The foundation of modus ponens is, quoting your source,
If P -> Q and P, then Q
In order for this to work, we must have both P -> Q and P. Will you please quote OP that shows we have P -> Q, as I have asked from the beginning, instead of making personal attacks? Alternatively, if I’m missing something in my foundations, such as “P -> Q can always be assumed in any basic symbolic context without proof,” educate me. As you have bolded, we can use modus ponens if and only if (necessary and sufficient) we have its requirements. If we don’t, per your source, we cannot use it to prove anything.
From your source, we must first have P -> Q. You have not demonstrated that. Sure, if we assume that P -> Q, then P -> Q. That’s a tautology. OP’s goal is to prove P -> Q. I’ve said this multiple times as did OP. Your consistent sharing of a truth table is a necessary condition for P -> Q but it is not sufficient. If P -> Q, then the truth table is valid. That’s modus ponens. You still gotta show (or assume like you have been) that P -> Q.
To quote OP,
P -> Q
I will be providing a proof by counterexample
In other words, P -> Q is an unproven hypothesis. If P -> Q, then your truth table is correct. If we assume P -> Q, then your truth table is correct. But propositional calculus unfortunately requires we prove things, not just show things that will be true if our original assumption is true.
You didn’t read OP, regularly refused back anything up, and came in with ad hominem. When others vote in a way that disagrees with you, you claim a conspiracy. I think the only person here acting in bad faith is you. I have tried to expand OP’s understanding of their proposal and you have only attacked people. You have attempted to insult me multiple times. Granted, I did take a swipe at you begging the question, so you could argue some bad faith was merited, but you saying I’ve never done logic while missing me explaining to you the point you’re suddenly trying to make (“necessary but not sufficient”) continues the poor student metaphor.
I’m sorry you found “good luck” to be patronizing. Does “have fun” work?
This isn’t recent. This has been an ongoing thing for at least 20 years (if not longer; that’s just the earliest I remember having this convo). Yes, it cleans the wound by killing things but it also fucks up the healthy tissue around the wound (see other comments for a more scientific explanation). Having some in a medical kit is useful for other activities such as diluting with water for an ear rinse, diluting with water for various mouth stuff (rinse not swallow), and some skin treatments (again, diluting first).