> But when you're a lone reporter, 12 or not, the legal costs related to defending yourself against even a bogus charge can be considerable.
Well, yes. This is true not just for independent journalists but for all people.
200 karma · joined December 16, 2018
Well, yes. This is true not just for independent journalists but for all people.
Twice in the video, Lysiak appears to begin disputing the officer's claim that she told him she was going to a friend's house:
"No, I didn't say..."
"I wasn't going to my f..."
And twice he cuts her off.
This is incorrect. Lysiak's hometown is Selinsgrove, Pennsylvania. There is no Selinsgrove, Arizona. This incident with the officer took place in Patagonia, Arizona.
The fact that it may be designed as an entertainment system and not as a surveillance system has no bearing on the fact that the former may readily be used for the latter. See Weeping Angel [1] for an example of one such manifested use-case.
And what does 'never been activated' mean? Does it mean they are default off, but a flight attendant (or anyone who accesses the control panel while the flight attendant is otherwise occupied) can turn on a camera to see what someone sitting at a specific seat is doing?
I would be genuinely curious to hear, via throwaway accounts if need be, about how FB staff rationalise things like this happening.
Do you shrug it off as not a big deal in the long run? As FB still doing a net amount of good versus what you perceive as isolated incidents like this? I'm just in good faith trying to figure out how people willingly work and continue to work for outfits that repeatedly engage in behaviour such as this. I know there are lots of speculative reasons we can put forward, but I think we have a great opportunity here in our community to have first-hand input.
He's been using the same exact jabs and barbs for more than a dozen years.
An example, in this 2019 review he writes:
> At this point, new books by Bukowski tend to be pretty old. Bukowski’s publisher has issued something like 20 volumes from “Buk” since the writer’s death in 1994, frequently with large chunks of them scavenged from previously published writing. The many recycled poems, letters and prose fragments in “On Drinking” follow previous collections including “On Cats” and “On Love” and “On Writing,” with “On Cats Who Love Drinking and Writing” presumably waiting in the wings.
In 2006, for a humor issue of _Poetry_ [1], he wrote a review titled:
> Reviewed Work: Charles Bukowski: Drafts, Scribbles, Doodles, Signed Leases, Cancelled Checks, Drawings on Cocktail Napkins, Things He Wrote on a Nerf Football with a Green Marker, Things He Wrote on a Waitress in Tulsa with the Same Green Marker, Things He Wrote (Possibly in Blood) on an Issue of Marie Claire, Things He Wrote (Possibly in Vomit) on a Copy of X-Men vs. the Fantastic Four No. 3, and Sestinas by Charles Bukowski
in which he goes on to write:
> If you've seen the 9,473 Charles Bukowski collections currently for sale in Barnes & Noble, you probably wondered, along with the rest of the poetry world, when we'd finally be given a full picture of this major artist by his choosy publisher. Sadly, this isn't it. Missing, for example, are five poems known to have been written by "Buk" on scraps of toilet paper during a binge in Sante Fe
Repeating the same lame 'here's a long title to show my displeasure at the amount of posthumous material that is being published because for some reason it is personally irritating to me just how prolific Bukowski actually was' joke for more than a dozen years is pretty hackneyed.
It almost seems like he's just rewriting the 2006 review here and adding some concern trolling about drunk driving.
[1] sci-hub.tw/https://www.jstor.org/stable/20607525
It's very difficult to contextualize and adapt to reading these short incremental bursts of text or 'Twitter threads'. It always feels like important context and exposition is missing. I seem to understand the gist, that Youtube seems to have promoted flat earth videos disproportionately, but the 'whistleblower' aspect is not immediately apparent.
This is good practice to prevent the possibility of revictimization in case the actual motive of the phishing attack was not phishing but to cause reputational damage to the owner of said email.
Consider: if someone wanted to target you and cause you potential legal and employment difficulties, they could launch a phishing attack using amateur code such as this, and have your work email appear as the "scammer's email", and then sit back and wait for the attack to be discovered and reported.
And even if not a reputation attack, the scammer could also simply be using a compromised email account, so once again redaction helps preempt the possibility of revictimization.
> Makes for good clickbait for their demographic though. In an ideal world they should really have stuck to fashion and culture (which their 'talent' is good at) and left the serious topics to people who have a strong grasp of the subjects. But that's boring and doesn't generate outrage on social media aka clicks -> ad views.
The author of this piece worked at Bloomberg and CBC prior to her position as the Economics & Money editor at Vice.
"But that's boring and doesn't generate outrage".
U2F is not immune to phishing attacks, at least not if backup codes are being used: https://youtu.be/rPTI9e-9tBE?t=936
Is this based on any evidence or just an assumption? It seems to me that the 'actual Facebook account' could just as readily be either a random or intentional framing of someone else by the one(s) doing the phishing attack or the page designer, in which case it would appear that it worked perfectly in that it apparently convinced Akamai.
>It’s unnecessary for humans to consume animal products, i.e. we can thrive on a vegan diet [1, 2, 3].
> Consuming animal products is one of the largest individual contributions to climate change [4, 5, 6].
> Consuming animal products results in slaughtering ~75 billion sentient farm animals each year — animals that want to live [7, 8].
> Logically, from the above three points, it follows that consuming animal products is unnecessary and causes destruction to the environment as well as billions of sentient animals.
Logically, this is textbook circular reasoning or a tautological fallacy. The author's three points are that consuming animal products is unnecessary and causes destruction to the environment as well as billions of sentient animals. To then say that the _exact same three things as the three points_ follow from those same three points is circular reasoning.
The specific claim I was addressing is not that one had to pretend to be a man to get something published, the original claim is, once again, that it was difficult to publish under your own name as a woman, as quoted several times now:
> This probably shows how difficult it was even then to get something published under your own name as a woman
The comment that it was customary to use a husband's name preceded by Mme. thus does not negate this original claim, if anything it reinforces it.
It is unfortunate that you do not consider such blatant, ham-fisted patriarchy as insulting.
> This probably shows how difficult it was even then to get something published under your own name as a woman
Or are you suggesting that it was not difficult for a woman to publish under her name, only that it was not customary to do so? Can you point to some supporting examples of this, if so?
> (It's still in use in more formal / old-fashioned contexts.)
formal / old-fashioned / misogynistic contexts.
> Le Roux admitted that he had created the encryption software E4M but denied that he had developed TrueCrypt, its famous progeny.
Also:
> Hafner and his SecurStar colleagues suspected that Le Roux was part of the TrueCrypt collective but couldn’t prove it. Indeed, even today the question of who launched the software remains unanswered. “The origin of TrueCrypt has always been very mysterious,” says Matthew Green, a computer-science professor at the Johns Hopkins Information Security Institute and an expert on TrueCrypt who led a security audit of the software in 2014. “It was written by anonymous folks; it could have been Paul Le Roux writing under an assumed name, or it could have been someone completely different.”
The developers of E4M and of VeraCrypt are known; the developers of TrueCrypt are not fully known.
[1] https://www.idrix.fr/Root/mos/Contact_Us/task,view/contact_i...
My (and the GPs) question was: let's say, following the filing of the requisite legal documents and the accompanying fees if any, you receive the contact information of the claimant from YouTube. You are in Germany. The claimant's address is in Turkmenistan. What are you meant to do next?