Surveillance being powerful, and the law being bad, are two different things. If they only ever used this to catch pedos I don’t think anyone would care.

Lmao yeah right. If that were true he would have defected.

If in the moment you’re replying to your own interpretation, you’re fine. But the second you overthink about their intentions, you will be freaking out, and that’s what the machine sees. One technique for bypassing lie detectors is to raise the baseline by flexing your butthole but there’s techniques to catch that, too.

Ghost is cinematic, sure. But I still like the classic dark souls parry sound. It’s like a gasp, and then a giant creature kneels before you so you can fuck it up.

People with no game blame “society” for “training” women to act as if sex is something to be withheld, thereby creating an economy where women don’t need to put in effort to get laid, thereby creating situations where shitty men blame women for their own failures, where in reality if you touch grass, wear deodorant, and have a shred of empathy there is no shortage of people you can meet that will gladly fuck you even though you’re fat and ugly.

But I know you know this and are simply being Socratic, so carry on!

Do you know what a memory stack and assembly are?

If you want code that does assembly operations A, B, and then C, you might be able to accomplish it by scanning loaded memory (or its corresponding binary) for bits that, when translated into assembly, do:

A

D

return

This set of three instructions is a gadget. In practice, it’s a location in memory.

And then you find another gadget.

B

C

return

Then, if you don’t care about D, or D does something irrelevant that won’t screw up what you’re trying to do, or won’t crash the program, you can replace the stack with the addresses of gadgets one and two. When gadget one returns, the stack is popped and then gadget two executes.

Since the computer did ADBC and D was irrelevant, the system executed your ABC malware and now you win.

Is finding gadgets that execute actual malware hard? Surprisingly not!

Declining the customer’s reasonable request disproportionately affects them. The corporation is a big boy too, and can eat whatever associated cost of accommodating (paying the customer off, resetting the “clock” the pilot is on by opening the door). In some cases, there’s no impact to any other customer (such as making up the lost time once you’re in the air and can cruise faster). These random occurrences are built into the price. If it happens too often then the corporation needs to track their own data better and not issue tickets with unreasonably timed or otherwise risky connections, because to not do so will enable their competitors to one-up them. Free market, amirite?

What’s the deal with “2o” instead of 20

That’s the point of agreements though. If you buy a game and don’t like the agreement you should be allowed to return it. If they change the agreement you should be allowed to return it. Agreements aren’t inherently a bad thing. There just hasn’t been enough backlash about bad agreements or the business models they create.

Source

https://www.tumblr.com/bravecrab/659760127814041600/pitch-a-muppet-movie-where-the-muppets-play-dd

I’m already lost at step one. The diagram doesn’t really explain wtf he is measuring

I was expecting it, too. I thought the AI picture of Trump as pope meant he had pulled strings to get an American, and was planning on combining that with his Deus Vult - tattooed secretary of defense to start a literal Crusade.

It’s just buying the dip. The crazy part is that despite how rich they are, they still need to do it. At a certain level of wealth, you have infinite money for a certain level of lifestyle. So even though they’re crazy rich, they are still living beyond their means, and in order to maintain that lifestyle for future generations, then need to cause economic crashes and buy the dip. Wild shit.

Does every single post related to cars have to turn into “don’t use cars lol”???

Crutch words suck ass. Go to Toastmasters.

It’s not actually that simple.

The difference between boycotting vs “just not eating there” is that the former is a loud movement, instead of a simple quiet preference that the free market will take care of itself.

Kevin is implying that people who don’t band together to actively fight wrongdoing are somehow superior. However what he’s really advocating for is divide and conquer in order to maintain the status quo.

Steve is usually funny and correct, but this time in doing so has missed a greater, more important, point.

I think there’s some distinction there. The founder selling out is one thing. But private equity, VC, etc all want a return on their investment and once you IPO, you become a fiduciary. Those companies produced a tool and sold it to a customer that by definition is required to be unethical.

But I agree that fighting implies an active component to it.

They call it hallucinations like it’s a cute brain fart, and “Agentic” means they’re using the output of one to be the input of another, which has access to things and can make decisions and actually fuck things up. It’s a complete fucking shit show. But humans are expensive so replacing them makes line go up.

“this show is so important, it must continue, but instead of dying on that hill and getting fired, I’m gonna quit so I can be replaced by someone who won’t rock the boat”

I think everyone in this thread needs to re-watch the scene where Littlefinger and Cercei discuss power.