Hard Pass

https://mastodon.social/@LukaszOlejnik/116594227712369614

they all try to do me like that

help i get theatened with extortion by my vape if i throw it away. Anthropic says it's my own fault

Due to it's danger, no public access, only accesible by selected partners, like Google, MS and nVidia "for security", so I'm calm, I think

rule

I saw this mailbox today and I want one so bad

Bedard is invoking a now-familiar argument among American liberals — namely that their party should always be pitching compromises rather than making maximalist demands. And perhaps at the end of drawn-out legislative fights, that logic occasionally might make a bit of sense. But what’s new here is that this argument — which had resulted in so many surrenders, including Barack Obama’s surrender of his single payer promise and then his public option promise — is now being made by liberals even before Democrats are in any kind of policy fight at all.

That, of course, is the intended effect of the Searchlight Institute’s proposals — to get liberals to help stop a Medicare for All fight before one even unfolds.

...

Notably, Searchlight’s own executive director, Adam Jentleson, once criticized that game in 2019 when Pete Buttigieg suddenly dialed back his support for Medicare for All. Back then, Jentleson impugned Buttigieg, saying he “supported Medicare for All for 15 years, then flipped and started attacking other Dems over it after raising a ton of money from the health care industry.” Jentleson added: “A reasonable person might conclude that the health care industry bought Pete’s opposition - and did so pretty easily.”

Fast forward seven years, and the health care crisis is worse, but Jentleson is now playing that game. And my question is: Why would anyone fall for such an obvious parlor trick? This impulse by liberals to constantly back down and make apologies for capitulating Democrats is just weird — and it’s ultimately why so many Americans think Democrats stand for nothing.

The terms "blindingly obvious," "logical consequence," and "that is not how it works" appear nowhere in the government handbook of internet legislation. In particular, the discovery that imposing age access controls on websites has pushed users to VPNs has come as a huge surprise to legislators in the UK, the EU, Canada, and Australia. Nobody here knows how old VPN users are, be they kids unwilling to lose access or adults unwilling to disgorge personally identifying data to who knows what.

As they recover from this shocking discovery, these fine people are looking at ways to control VPNs, whether by adding age verification here too or by some magical "digital age of consent" technology that somehow evades the paradox that demanding more personal information in the name of safety itself reduces safety. Yet here, as in so many ways, the rest of the world is lagging behind America – more specifically, the great state of Utah, which has just enacted an anti-VPN law.

This law makes it compulsory for any site that the state says needs age verification – porn, basically – to impose those checks on anyone physically in Utah whether or not they are using any VPN. Those would be the same VPNs whose sole purpose is to prevent the geolocation of their users. Which would seem, and is, another paradox.

I'd not go online without a VPN. There's absolutely no reason my ISP needs my browsing history. And at about $6/month, it's not exactly breaking the bank.

What I'd not use is any VPN provider that sponsors YouTube content. A free VPN has to make their money from somewhere.

The agent is the second federal officer to face felony charges in Minnesota stemming from Operation Metro Surge, the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

Hi, new person here (they/them)

I haven't been a person for very long at all, really...

Listen to Malcolm X if you haven't. In history, reformation follows revolutionary acts. While there are those who preach peace, there are also those who use violence to achieve peace. Those in power obviously don't like to shed light on those that may take up violent acts.

I doubt if the french revolution was occuring today that CNN, CBS, The Washington Post, etc, would say anything. And if they did it would be to demonize the acts.

In the wake of the alleged shooting by Luigi Mangione, insurance providers started approving claims, saving lives. I don't see major networks pointing out that fact.