Carl

Sounds like it was written by the author originally, then an editor or manager went “this doesn’t sound impressive enough. We need more metrics and hard numbers”. So they copy-pasted some third-person content from the author’s Wikipedia page, before sending it to the site.

It’s also a bunch of far-right influencer shills who signed up to review it. Which means the hack could potentially provide some valuable info on who is getting paid to push Trump’s agendas.

It really is the epitome of the “used the wrong formula but somehow got the right answer” meme.

Mozart was also a completely ungovernable furry with ADHD. He was a child genius, but that meant he was sitting in opera rehearsals as a bored teenager.

And when he’d get bored, he’d start finding ways to entertain himself. This included doing things like playing “the floor is lava” while using the orchestra members as platforms, and prancing around while loudly meowing.

And all of them basically put up with it, the same way that modern tour managers put up with annoying frontmen in popular bands.

they produce the stuff they do because there’s demand for those products. If nestle stopped bottling water and selling it at inflated prices while being shitheels… someone else will step in to meet the demand that exists.

This is literally the origin of the term “the customer is always right.” Imagine you create the world’s most perfect product. It is truly revolutionary. It meaningfully improves your customers’ lives, it is easy to manufacture and get to your customers, it is cheap, and it is durable. It is all of the things that a perfect product should be. And you have a competitor. This is a bad imitation. It’s more expensive, it’s less durable, it’s worse at what it does, and it’s more difficult to manufacture.

And yet, the competitor is consistently selling out, while you struggle to sell enough to make ends meet. Even though your product is better in every measurable way, you are selling the wrong product. The customer is always right, and in this example the customer wants the shitty (and more expensive) version. It doesn’t matter how good your product is in comparison. The customer is the ultimate driving force behind whether or not you’ll be able to sell anything, and is therefore always right. If you insist on selling your perfect (but unmarketable) version, it isn’t the customer’s fault when you go bankrupt. It is your fault for trying to defy the customer.

And you know what companies like Nestle, Amazon, etc are really good at? Finding what customers want. And yes, the customer tends to be stupid and short-sighted. But the customer is always right.

Apps can’t add permissions via an update. If an app adds a new feature with an update that requires a new permission, the user will be prompted the first time the app tries to use that new feature.

It’s also because Apple’s permissions are hilariously monolithic. A lot of their permissions are set up as an all-or-nothing event, instead of allowing granular control. Full disc access is a great example, where a user should be able to grant access to specific folders and files on an as-needed basis. But that’s not the default behavior. The default behavior is to just go “hey do you wanna give this app access to everything?

It’s because you only need to take an oath if you’re testifying. And arguing isn’t testifying. Lawyers are already bound by ethics standards for things like lying. For instance, if a lawyer knows you killed someone, they can’t openly say you didn’t.

They can argue that the evidence is lacking. They can argue that the prosecution hasn’t done enough to prove your guilt. They can find gaps in the prosecution’s case and start poking holes to provide reasonable doubt. But they can’t put a witness on the stand who they know is going to lie in your defense. And that includes themselves. Also, no lawyer would want to take the stand, because then the opposing lawyer would have a chance to cross-examine them directly while they’re under oath, and likely have them testify against their own client. It would be a very big can of worms.

No, she probably isn’t. ICE has intentionally operated in a way that makes filing lawsuits against agents nearly impossible. In order to bring a lawsuit against an agent, step 1 is finding out which agent harmed you. And ICE has intentionally made that as difficult as possible, with unmarked vehicles that don’t even have plates, masked agents without any kind of identifying marks, constantly shuffling agents around so the agent who hurt you yesterday probably isn’t even in town today, burying any kind of discovery behind mountains of red tape and then systematically refusing to fill valid requests for info, etc…

Basically, unless your agent is unmasked via independent detective work, the chances of being able to file a lawsuit are near 0.

And it’ll only take one NYC resident to challenge that before the requirement is outlawed. If it doesn’t require proof of address to sign up, it shouldn’t require proof of address to cancel.

Getting off the Nazi side is step 0. It’s the bare fucking minimum to even begin the process. They aren’t magically forgiven just because they were affected by their own shitty actions.

I agree that the left is particularly bad about bashing on people who are thinking about switching sides. People often say that the right is a cult, but that’s because it has a LOT of the indicators of being an actual cult, including using cult conditioning on its members.

A large part of cult conditioning is warning your members that safety can only be found within the cult. Telling cult members that the outside world is hostile and out to get them. And then they intentionally send those cult members out into the world, with the mission of being annoyingly aggressive proselytizers. And when they’re naturally met with hostility during that mission, (because of course they are, nobody likes the random door-knockers and street-corner-shouters trying to convert them), it confirms what the cult members have been warned about, and drives them deeper into the arms of the cult.

And attacking someone who is thinking about leaving conservatism plays directly into that same cult conditioning pattern. The right has spent a lot of time indoctrinating their members to believe that the outside world will be hostile. And attacking a former conservative only confirms what the right has warned them about, and pushes them back towards conservatism.

But that doesn’t mean we should welcome Nazis into the group just because they were attacked by other Nazis. They’re basically saying “okay, maybe Nazis aren’t all good.” But then you dig deeper, and they’re often arriving at that statement by saying “yeah the Nazi-on-Nazi crime is an issue we need to address, to keep the Nazi party strong.” They’re viewing the entire situation through a fundamentally skewed lens. And someone saying “maybe Nazis aren’t all good” is worth investigating, rather than taking the statement at face value and welcoming them with open arms.

Republicans blocked Obama’s appointees because it was “too close to elections, (a year away), and we should let the voters decide.” The idiot Dems went along with it, because they thought that Hillary would steamroll the next election. Trump won. Then a few years later when RBG died (only a few months before Biden was elected) they shamelessly rammed Trump’s appointee through.

If voters flip congress, I’d argue it is Schumer’s moral imperative to block anything and everything Trump tries to do, because the voters will have spoken. That’s the same reasoning for not appointing anyone during Obama’s second term, after all.

I actually just updated my post to clarify how child/teen accounts would be handled without needing direct verification. No hash needed for minors, meaning there is no risk of this. I think we danced around each other while posting, because I saw the notification for your comment as soon as I finalized my edit.

I’d be fully in favor of hardware-level age verification. And by that, I mean we already have the technology to securely and privately verify your age directly with the government, (not using a third-party), and so no single organization has a chance to collect more than a salted hash of your info. Then your user account (or the entire device, if you’re using a phone) would be considered verified. It would require governments to actually cooperate and be technologically literate, (which… Yeah… I know that makes it a pipe dream) but it is technologically feasible to implement.

The short version is as follows:

1. Governments have citizens create a password. Ideally this would happen when they’re applying for their ID, which they would need to have to verify their age anyways. This password and salt is used for their hashed info.
2. The government sets up a database of salted hashed info, along with a simple Boolean pass/fail for whether or not the individual is an adult. Again, this is only using salted hashes, (the same method we use to securely store passwords) so there is no recognizable data even if it gets intercepted in transit.
3. The government publishes a service that intakes a hash, and returns a true/false for whether that hash matches an adult in their database. Again, no actual PII is stored in this database, only salted hashes.
4. The user who wants to verify their age inputs their info into their device using standardized inputs, along with the password they created when they applied for their ID. This is hashed directly on the device, just like a password is hashed before it is sent to a website. This hash is the only info that leaves the device.
5. Whatever service that is trying to verify your age takes this hash, passes it to that government database, and receives a pass/fail result. If you pass, your age is now verified. Congrats!
   (a) Note that the company never received your PII, they only received the salted hash, and only received a basic Boolean 1/0 response from the government server. They never even received your exact age.
   (b) Note that the government never received any info about your device, so they can’t use it to track you at a hardware level. They simply saw Microsoft/Google/Apple/etc. asking about a hash.
6. Now that account is verified, and can be used to automatically bypass any age-gates on any devices it is used on.
   (a) For example, if your Microsoft account is verified, any computer you log into with it will also be verified while you’re logged in. If your Apple/Google account is verified, your phone/tablet is verified when you’re logged into it. This could also allow adult accounts to set up restricted child/teen accounts for shared devices like desktops or tablets. Allowing those children/teens access to age-appropriate content without needing to deal with verifying them independently, because the child/teen account was made with a verified adult account so the age range on those restricted accounts can also be trusted.
7. This could even cut out the middleman and verify the device directly using that same government service, but that would need to come with some extra security precautions (which I’m not smart enough to devise) to be sure the government isn’t able to collect verification attempts and tie individuals to the specific hardware devices that made those requests.

And then the verified device can directly pass a “yes this user is over 18” flag directly to any service that needs it. Sites simply ask for an age range. A verified account would automatically respond as “Adult”. A restricted child/teen account (created by a verified account) would automatically respond with “child” or “teen” respectively. And an unverified unrestricted account wouldn’t respond (or would respond as unverified) which would prompt sites to automatically hit them with the age verification gate. This age range check could all be done securely during the initial TLS handshake, before the site even begins to load. Ideally, it would be a fairly wide age range, to prevent data collection services from simply going “oh this user was reporting their age as 14 yesterday and now they’re 15. Now we know their birthday is today.”

This would all allow websites and services to verify ages on the backend, without actually needing to use third-party services. It would also allow for a much smoother user experience, with verified adult users being able to automatically bypass any kind of age gates. And unverified users trying to watch porn would probably automatically get redirected to a “your device isn’t verified, here is why, here is how to verify it” page. No concerns about kids lying and clicking the “yes I’m over 18” button, because they never even see a button to click. They just immediately get redirected to YouTube as soon as the site sees that they’re not verified as an adult.

It’s really the best of all worlds. It allows for secure verification, where the only info leaving your device is scrambled. It appeases the “think of the children” politicians and allows them to put their name on something. It allows us to ditch the stupid fucking “click here if you’re over 18” pages. And most importantly, it would actually protect kids, because now preventing them from accessing mature content is as simple as protecting your passwords. Because your kid can’t just steal your ID to verify their device without also having your password.

But again, none of this will ever happen because the data companies are the ones pushing for age verification laws. They want to insert themselves as the only viable third-party for verification, because they want to be able to collect all of our data. And that means the inevitable age verification methods will be the least insecure, most invasive methods imaginable. I’ve been saying for a while now that we should work to give politicians a better method, to stop them from implementing the worst shit that lobbyists can pay for. But lobbyists can pay, so their suggestions will go a lot farther even if they’re less secure.

This is because your pipes are cracked. Sewer lines are always moist and full of… Fertilizer. So roots will find any excuse to grow into them. Unfortunately the only foolproof fix is to replace the pipes.

Technically, if you’re trying to maximize the amount of solid waste that can be carried, the best drainage pipes would actually be oval or arch shaped. A flatter bottom means the pipe can reliably carry more solids with less liquid. Because moving water doesn’t need to be deep to push something along. Round pipes collect a majority of the water in the bottom of the circumference, while the sides stay fairly dry. Meaning larger solids can easily wedge over or stick to the sides, while relatively deep water rushes below it. Flattening the bottom of the pipe allows the rushing water to spread out more, meaning it can more reliably carry solids that would get stuck in a round pipe.

But you don’t want hard corners with something like a rectangular pipe, because the corners would concentrate pressure and be more prone to breaking. And the flat pipe walls would be prone to bending or flexing, (or just outright breaking, if your pipe material is brittle). So an oval (or arch shaped) pipe is a good combination of the two, with a relatively flat bottom and a smooth curve to evenly distribute force. So hard blockages (especially now that environmental regulations have implemented things like maximum gallons-per-flush limits) would be less common with oval pipes.

And if you look at things like weather drains under bridges, that is often exactly what they use. In those cases, the engineers are usually worried about maximizing fluid throughput without drastically changing the height of something like a bridge. Because if you need a pipe with a specific capacity for adequate weather drainage, your only real option is to make the pipe big enough to fit that capacity. But if you have something like a bridge, increasing the circumference of a round pipe could make the bridge laughably tall (and prohitively expensive). And you can’t just dig the bottom lower, because water only flows downhill. So if you lowered your drain pipe, you’d need to dig out everything downstream of that bridge too. Which is obviously not feasible for most projects. So instead of increasing the entire circumference, they just make the drain wider while keeping the height the same. And congrats, now you have designed the modern oval storm drain:

And the modern arch-shaped storm drain:

Yeah, the grand jury thing is particularly damning.

For the unaware: The old joke among criminal defense lawyers is that a Grand Jury will indict a ham sandwich for murder if the District Attorney wants them to. The GJ is strictly an arm of the DA’s office, and a failure to indict basically always means the DA didn’t want to prosecute them. The DA has full control over what evidence the GJ gets to (or in this case, doesn’t get to) see.

The evidence they present doesn’t need to stand up to court scrutiny, because the GJ isn’t held to the same standards for evidence. The DA could basically scribble a “lol yeah I definitely did it -{Suspect}” note on a napkin and present it to the GJ as evidence of a confession. The fact that it won’t hold up in court doesn’t matter, because the GJ isn’t ruling on guilt. They’re just ruling on whether or not the DA has enough evidence to bother with a trial.

The DA can even withhold exculpatory evidence that would prove the suspect’s innocence, if they think the suspect can’t afford a good lawyer and they want to try and force the suspect into taking a plea deal. That is particularly common when they just need to close a particularly hot case, and they don’t really care who actually did the crime. They’ll basically frame some poor schmuck who has a good alibi, in the hopes that the person’s public defender talks them into taking a plea deal before it ever goes to trial.

“So why bother with all of this” I can already hear some of you typing… The answer is very simple: It’s because the DA is an elected position, and needs to consider their public image when deciding whether or not to prosecute a case. For example, let’s say a cop kills a dude in the street. It’s on camera from 20 different angles. The public is out for blood. And it’s election season, so the DA’s public image is under a spotlight right now. But the police union has privately told the DA that if they prosecute the cop for murder, CSI will stop collecting evidence at crime scenes, and officers will suddenly refuse to testify as witnesses in the DA’s trials. This puts the DA in a bit of a pickle. Do they hold to what their electors want (and risk letting future criminals walk free), just to prosecute the one cop? Or do they let the cop walk away, angering the public and likely losing their upcoming election?

Enter the Grand Jury. The GJ is a super convenient scapegoat. They’re a shadowy group of faceless individuals, with no public presence and no way to defend themselves or justify their decisions. Their only job is to do what the DA wants them to do. The DA doesn’t want to prosecute this cop, but also wants to win their election. So the DA does something supremely scummy: They tell the public that they’re bringing the case to the GJ… And then they don’t actually bring any evidence for the GJ. The GJ can only rule on the evidence that was presented, and since the DA has full control over the evidence, they can withhold everything. So the GJ naturally refuses to indict, because there is an overwhelming lack of evidence.

And now the DA can jump in front of the news cameras, and yell about “I tried so hard to prosecute this case, but the big mean GJ refused to indict and now my hands are tied. But remember, I tried to fight for what you wanted! I heard your cries for justice, and did everything I could to prosecute that big mean killer cop. Vote for me!”

Again, the GJ can’t refute that statement, because they’re not publicly known. The GJ can’t go “hey uhh you actually didn’t bring a single fucking shred of evidence.” They can’t go “we actually would have indicted if you had actually tried.” They can’t go “you’re a lying sack of shit who is using us as a scapegoat.” The DA gets control of the evidence, but they also get control of the narrative.

So any time you see a DA claiming to be building a case for the GJ and then the GJ fails to indict, remember that it was because the DA didn’t want to charge them.

I mean… The red tape part could actually be true. But only because black people have historically had to deal with a lot more red tape than white people. Because red tape is a tool that often gets weaponized in the name of racism. For a white person, red tape is an occasional inconvenience. For many black people, red tape is a fact of life, as inevitable as death and taxes.

Black people have been developing (and passing down) strategies to work within and around systematic discrimination for generations, because for them it is a necessary survival mechanism. If cutting some red tape is the difference between your family eating or going hungry, you can bet your ass that people will be singularly motivated to figure out ways to cut that red tape.

This post was probably in response to the recent Cornell 7 situation.

A former Cornell student was drugged and gang-raped in a frat house for 7 hours in 2024. When she reported it, two of the rapists were expelled, and five more had to write an essay about why rape is bad. No criminal charges were brought against any of them, even the two who were expelled. Zero arrests. The entire frat house knew about it, and even the ones who refused to participate in the gang-rape chose to do nothing.

The case recently went viral because she is suing the seven men and the college. And now that it has gone viral, investigators have said they’re going to reopen the criminal investigation that they previously closed. But they’re only doing that because it quickly became apparent that the police intentionally refused to do anything about it, and now they have egg on their face.

And this isn’t just a he-said-she-said situation where there is some ambiguity about whether or not the attack happened. We have text messages from the frat members, telling each other about the free pussy in the bedroom, and to just walk in and whip it out. She had been repeatedly drugged with ketamine and liquor throughout the 7 hour long gang rape, and all 7 knew she was completely out of it and unable to consent. Those are direct quotes, by the way. This photo was entered as evidence in New York’s court:

Additionally, in 2025, Cornell reported that 35% of undergraduate women respondents said they had experienced nonconsensual sexual contact during their Cornell careers, compared with 23% in 2023. That is a staggering increase.

Things definitely haven’t gotten better.

Worth nothing that this is also why so many old paintings of baby Jesus have him looking like a tiny old man. The concept of the homunculus influenced religion, because Jesus was supposed to be a perfect being. But if he is perfect, he can’t change as he ages. Because if you change perfection, it is no longer perfect. So they believed he was born looking like a tiny baby-sized adult. And that means a lot of medieval paintings have baby Jesus looking like a grumpy old man:

This sounds like an exaggeration, but a Twitch streamer got up and made a cup of coffee during a big motorcycle chase segment. His character was literally bouncing off of cars and guardrails on the highway, and he still finished the chase segment successfully. Literally didn’t touch the controller at all, and still finished it.