>According to Dr Richards, some, but not all people, had their tattoos done overseas, including in Bali.
416 karma · joined March 17, 2019
You know you can sell 4000 of those products for a total of $15k.
This might become a bad deal if dealing with the 6000 extra units costs you money.
This can be profitable for the customer, if they can't just easily get rid of those 1000 they can't sell, it's presumably less profitable.
In theory companies would eventually be forced to produce less items nobody wants, although this is just an additional incentive in that natural process.
Couldn't is an immensely high bar in this context, didn't seems more appropriate and renders this whole thing slightly less exciting.
I don't think there's any jurisdiction that requires public disclosure at this level of detail. It's really an extraordinary ask. How many of these reports have you seen?
Why does a LLM-generated article even need two human bylines?
Hard to imagine a human in 2026 accidentally writing something like this:
The most significant takeaway from the audit was the exceptional stability of the HAProxy core. The auditors didn't just review code; they hammered it.
The team performed extensive "fuzzing" by feeding the system massive amounts of malformed, garbage, and malicious data. They primarily targeted the HAProxy network request handling and internal sockets. This testing went on for days, and in the case of internal sockets, up to 25 days.
The result? Zero bugs. Zero crashes.Also FWIW that's boilerplate language commonly used on these warrants across multiple federal districts, google "While attempting to unlock the device by use of the compelled display" and see for yourself.
>During the execution of the search of HANNAH NATANSON as described in Attachment A-3, law enforcement personnel are authorized to (1) press or swipe the fingers (including thumbs) of HANNAH NATANSON to the fingerprint scanner of the device; (2) hold a device found during the search in front of the face of HANNAH NATANSON and activate the facial recognition feature, for the purpose of attempting to unlock the device in order to search the contents as authorized by this warrant.
>While attempting to unlock the device by use of the compelled display of biometric characteristics pursuant to this warrant, law enforcement is not authorized to demand that an occupant state or otherwise provide the password or identify the specific biometric characteristics (including the unique fingers) or other physical features), that may be used to unlock or access the device(s). Nor does the warrant authorize law enforcement to use the fact that the warrant allows law enforcement to obtain the display of any biometric characteristics to compel an occupant to state or otherwise provide that information. However, the voluntary disclosure of such information by an occupant is permitted. To avoid confusion on that point, if agents in executing the warrant ask an occupant for the password to any device(s), or to identify which biometric characteristic (including the unique fingers) or other physical features) unlocks any device(s), the agents will not state or otherwise imply that the warrant requires the person to provide such information, and will make clear that providing any such information is voluntary and that the person is free to refuse the request.
Making your body parts available is not testimonial, answering "Which finger?" undoubtedly is.
The court can compel you to make your fingers available, it can not force you to disclose which finger or the manner in which you touch that finger on the fingerprint sensor. Apple devices allow only limited attempts.
If you're not being actively helpful, the investigators may end in a rather awkward position.
That's why it's all so bizarre. The OP claims to be supportive of archive.today, but simultaneously publishes an article detailing his attempt at doxing the owner.
It's hard to see how OP could be acting in good faith here, if they truly meant no harm and were as appreciative of archive.today as they claim to be, they'd just have taken down the article.
>It just seems like journalism to me.
What does that even mean? Are you trying to suggest that journalism is inherently okay? A piece of despicable journalism simply cannot exist?
>No details were reported that would reasonably be expected to compromise anyone's safety.
So it's okay because he failed at what he set out to do? I'd counter that regardless of whether or not the doxing was successful, publishing this information serves no other purpose but to aid future attempts.
>Why should it be disallowed to investigate the ownership of a website?
You have to be kidding, I feel like anyone with even just the most basic social skills would be able to understand that absolutely nobody gives a shit about what you do as long as it doesn't affect other people.
> And, to that point, archive.is isn't so different from a store. They accept donations, so it seems perfectly reasonable to ask and answer questions about where the donations go IMO.
Obviously it is very different from a store.
Besides, why would you spend time trying to identify the owner of a store who is obviously not interested in identifying themselves? Surely the right choice is to pass in approximately 100% of such cases.
Touch ID allows only limited attempts, so odds are the FBI wouldn't just try to wrestle her to attempt different fingers on the spot even if they were allowed to do so.
They're merely presenting a wishlist to the judge.
From pages 20 and 22 of ... not the warrant:
It'd certainly be a good first step to figure out how to identify whether or not the PDF you're linking to is in fact a warrant at all before trying to educate others on them.
She was not forced, and the warrant does not state that she could be forced. The warrant, almost certainly deliberately, uses far milder language.