S410

Well, why would banks replace the system which allows them to charge fees for every other interaction with their services? A blockain solution would allow multiple different banks (and, possibly, even regular people) to access the data with no middlemen, and, therefore, no fees. Or, well, no fees that directly end up in the bank’s pockets as profit, that is.

Getting rid of that is bad for business. So, unless something magical happens and the EU, for example, pass a law requiring the banks to switch to a more de-centralized, more fair system, it’s not going to happen.

Android is sending a ton of data, though, even if you’re not doing anything internet related. It, also, kinda reacts to “okay, google”, which wouldn’t really be possible if it wasn’t listening.

Now, it obviously doesn’t keep a continuous, lossless audio stream from the phone to some google server. But, it could be sending text parsed from audio locally, or just snippets of audio when the thing detects speech. Relatively normal stuff to collect for analytics purposes, actually.

Now, data like that could “easily” get “misplaced”, of course, and end up in the ad-shoveling machine… Not necessary at Google’s hands: could be any app, really. Facebook, TickTok, random free to play Candy Crush clone, etc. But if that data gets into the interwoven clusterfuck of advertisement might, it will likely end up having an effect on the ads shown to the user.

I’ve noticed that too. Intentionally veered a conversation into a different topic and, lo and behold, I get “relevant recommendation” short time later. That was, not entirely coincidentally, the same day I unlocked the bootloader and flashed a de-googled ROM.

Every source I can find mentions maximum effective range at 15ft to be ~98 feet, not 909. So that zero in the middle is probably a typo, if I had to guess.

Dualbooting is possible and easy: just gotta shrink the Windows partition and install Linux next to it. Make sure to not format the whole thing by mistake, though. A lot of Linux installers want to format the disk by default, so you have to pick manual mode and make sure to shrink (not delete and re-create!) the windows partition.

As for its usefulness, however… Switching the OS is incredibly annoying. Every time you want to do that you have to shut down the system completely and boot it back up. That means you have to stop everything you’re doing, save all the progress, and then try to get back to speed 2 minutes later. After a while the constant rebooting gets really old.

Furthermore, Linux a completely different system that shares only some surface level things with Windows. Switching to it basically means re-learning how to use a computer almost from scratch, which is, also, incredibly frustrating.

The two things combined very quickly turn into a temptation to just keep using the more familiar system. (Been there, done that.)

I think I’ll have to agree with people who propose Virtual Machines as a solution.

Running Linux in a VM on Windows would let you play around with it, tinker a little and see what software is and isn’t available on it. From there you’ll be able to decide if you’re even willing to dedicate more time and effort to learning it.

If you decide to continue, you can dual boot Windows and Linux. But not to be able to switch between the two, but to be able to back out of the experiment.

Instead, the roles of the OSes could be reversed: a second copy of Windows could be install in a VM, which, in turn, would run on Linux.

That way, you’d still have a way to run some more picky Windows software (that is, software that refuses to work in Wine) without actually booting into Windows.

This approach would maximize exposure to Linux, while still allowing to back out of the experiment at any moment.

Regular bullets fired out of regular firearms basically disintegrate in water. Counter-intuitively, putting more energy into a bullet only worsens the results, making it stop even faster.

Underwater firearms do exist, but they are not common, and even they have incredibly limited range. As far as I know, none have effective range greatly exceeding 50 meters, let alone 100.

Wayland has it’s fair share of problems that haven’t been solved yet, but most of those points are nonsense.

If that person lived a little over a hundred years ago and wrote a rant about cars vs horses instead, it’d go something like this:

Think twice before abandoning Horses. Cars break everything!
Cars break if you stuff hay in the fuel tank!
Cars are incompatible with horse shoes!
You can’t shove your dick in a car’s mouth!

The rant you’re linking makes about as much sense.

A person who grabbed a gun after the police knocked on the door and announced themselves.

Treat a firearm like you’d tread your dick. You keep the latter in your pants and the former in your holster. It’s not illegal to hold your dick in your hand while your at home, but if you answer your while doing so, chances are, you’re getting charged with indecent exposure. Makes sense, right?

Similarly, it’s perfectly legal to carry or even flail around a gun while you’re in your own home. But it can very easily turn into brandishing if you’d go to answer the door with one in hand. So here’s a crazy idea: how about you don’t? Particularly when you’re answering the door to police, of all things, who you know are armed.

Being lectured for supposedly “dehumanizing people” by people who yell that “all cops are bastards”…
Maybe look in a mirror once in a while?

Okay, I officially feel like an idiot now.
This entire thread is like arguing with a dog regarding its barking. No matter how much thought and logic is thrown at it, the dog just wouldn’t shut up, because it doesn’t even comprehend what “an argument”, “logic” and “reason” are.
Same here. You use logic and explain that the world is not perfectly black and white, in returns they yell “acab” just because they “feel” like it.

Clearly that’s only reason police exist. No exceptions. They never do anything other than abuse power and shoot people for funzies. Not at all.

As we all know, the world is perfectly black and white. Assigning qualities to groups of people and, then, treating people in those groups as if all of them posses those same qualities is a perfect system with no flaws. AdolfSchmitler would know.

Okay, fine. At the door. In direct line of sight. With a gun in hand. Because that changes everything.
This conversation isn’t going anywhere. Look, if you think that walking up to cops with a gun in hand is good idea, more power to you. Have fun figuring out that actions have consequences.

“Pouncy’s girlfriend told reporters Friday that she and Pouncy heard banging on the door and that Pouncy walked to the door with gun.”

It’s not on the video, but it’s confirmed that it has happened. Not everything has to be in one place.

The cops are several yards to the right of the door. Last time I’ve checked, the cops didn’t posses the ability to see through walls or behind corners.

That did not happen.

There’s a video. You can watch it.

Also did not happen. Holding a weapon is not brandishing it.

The definition of “brandishing” in holding or display a weapon in an intimidating or threatening manner. Substitute the cops with a pizza delivery person, for example, and I bet they’d feel pretty darn intimidated and/or threatened in this exact situation.

When you greet someone at your door, you keep your gun in your holster, just like you keep your dick in your pants. That’s called common sense. If you don’t have, you’ve only got yourself to blame.

The slogan isn’t “get shot and die, because you’re too tough to shoot an armed person first” either.

Just imagine yourself in this situation: You’re a cop. You’re in front of a house that someone, reportedly, broke into. You bang on the door and identify yourself. Several seconds later, a person with gun walks out, not saying a word.

Even if you take a second to access the situation: there’s a person, brandishing a weapon (which, in most cases, is a crime) walking out of a house that has been broken into. How does this come off as a safe or normal situation, exactly?

There are plenty of cases where the police overreact or use excessive force entirely unjustified. There are even more cases when the police get shot at without any rhythm or reason.

There’s a reason they’re trained to open fire in uncertain situations. A split second decision might be the difference between them dying on the job and going back home to their families.

So, don’t create those uncertain situations, unless getting shot is what you’re looking for. If the police are banging on your door, they suspect that something is going on. Best you can do, is help them figure out the situation. The cops, however, are not psychic and don’t know you and your intentions. So, if you have a gun, keep it in your holster or off yourself entirely. Identify yourself. Talk to them. Don’t just walk out on them, gun in hand…

Contribute to FOSS software.

Simply disabling registration of new accounts using Tor/VPN should be sufficient and won’t affect existing users.

Although, requiring verification of accounts made via those would be a better approach. Require captchas to prevent automated posting. Automatically mark posts made from new accounts and/or via Tor or a VPN for moderation review.

There are way to mitigate spam that aren’t as blunt and overreaching as blanket banning entire IP ranges. This approach is the dumbest, least competent way of ensuring any kind of security, and, honestly, awfully close to being needlessly discriminating. Fuck everyone from countries with draconian internet censorship, I guess?

“What are your thoughts about setting your hair on fire?”
“This Wikipedia article about burns covers it pretty well”
“Aha! So you’re a parrot!”

There’s a finite number of possible conclusions one can come to if they use this little thing called “logic”. If multiple people apply it to the same problem, they’re likely to come up with similar, if not identical, answers. If your conclusions about some given thing aren’t shared by anybody else, it’s more likely than not because they’re illogical nonsense. It’s even worse if your conclusions are outright nonexistent. That’s not good. Means you stoopid.

Something like a centralized financial system has some very obvious, glaring issues that should be instantly apparent to anyone. And I’m, obviously, not the first person to think about it. So, why should I write something, if people who thought about it before me already outlined all the logical concerns about this system? And, likely, in a more detailed and in-depth manner than I’d care to write in a comment on a random website.