gruez

IANAL, but it's not hard to find answers with a trivial search, eg.

https://kieferandkiefer.com/understanding-how-jury-verdicts-...

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2006/R331...

>Their ad platform worked exactly as designed: it allowed creepy, microtargeted advertisements. Instead of dish soap, peptides, and dropshipped garbage, it sold a political candidate.

No? The scandal was that random "apps" (eg. quizzes) were able to scrape user and their friends' profile data. The expansion of that into ad targeting as a whole is just a retcon you're doing.

> In the 2010s, personal data belonging to millions of Facebook users was collected by British consulting firm Cambridge Analytica for political advertising without informed consent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana...

>New Mexico decided to go it alone and gets $25 billion.

No because that's still subject to appeal, unlike the settlement. "a bird in hand is worth two in the bush", etc.

>This dispute has nothing to do with the person whose numbers were fraudulently used. This should be between CashApp and the scammer.

No, because scamming people is a crime, not just a civil dispute, so the police are involved. It's like if someone got drunk and then crashed into you. You could certainly go after the driver for damages (civil), but the police can independently go after the driver criminally (drunk/reckless driving).

>Shouldn't authorities have to prove that this random person did something wrong?

They do, but there's a gap between when someone's arrested and when the trial happens, and in that time the person can detailed, have to post bail, lose their job, etc. When it does go to trial, I suspect even an overworked public defender would be able to raise reasonable doubt for her to get free, but as the saying goes, "you can beat the rap but not the ride".

>... Wiz, OpenAI, and Calif sat on their hands doing nothing while the vuln was being actively exploited in the wild.

What was Wiz/OpenAI supposed to do? PHP was already aware of the issue.

But the window was arguably already broken? The opposite would be something like the "bury-head-in-sand economy"?

>In other words: criminals.

You're not required to disclose bugs, nor is developing exploits a criminal offense (assuming no intent/conspiracy to hack stuff).

>Do not address people in this way. You are contributing to the exact problem we're talking about (how easy it is for information to turn out to be wrong).

It's pretty obvious the OP is a thinly veiled attack at whoever believed the "lie", dressed up as a question. The only saving grace is that the wording was so ambiguous that regardless of whether it was the debunking or counter-debunking that was correct, the comment would still be applicable.

That also contradicts the original article, which claims the right side up photo was "Provided by Nafisa Fai".

upside down. The retracted article was "debunking" the upside down picture, claiming it was fake.

https://archive.is/kRbug

In that case, lmao at all the people who were downvoted to grey (or rather, the people who downvoted them into grey), despite being in the right.

screenshot for posterity: https://i.postimg.cc/vTCTyYZ1/Screenshot.png

The ironic part is that the veracity of the debunking is being questioned, so depending on how this turns out, this could either be referring to "haha dumb right wingers falling for AI generated meme" or "haha dumb left wingers falling for AI generated debunking". Truly a rorschach test of a comment.

edit: the story was retracted so the "people manipulated with lies" are the people who believed oregon journalism project?

Even more damning seems to be the video of the event and cached images from google, which does not have an openai watermark (yes, verified myself).

https://x.com/kgallella/status/2112332869461045733

https://x.com/Honest_Bender/status/2112301833708519659

Of course it doesn't conclusively prove that the flag was definitely right side up, but you'd really have to bend over backwards to explain why Oregon Journalism Project's "debunking" is watermarked but the counter-debunkings aren't.

As opposed to trusting "Oregon Journalism Project"?

If you're doing a MITM attack, you can selectively intercept certain clients, and only serve the compromised certificate in those cases only. Automated scanners won't pick that up. None of this actually works though, because browsers started mandating certificate transparency.

Why are the goalposts getting randomly nudged around? First it was

>A party that wants to get rid of the system that enabled them to get voted for in the first place is anti-democratic.

Then it was

>fearmongering, calling the current government a "cartel",

And now you're saying

>abolish core concepts of the democracy or constitutionally guaranteed rights

In other words, it went from "afd wants to get rid of democracy" to "afd's policies breaks the constitution". Of course you guys are different people and are entitled to your own opinions, but it's tiring arguing on a slippery topic that keeps on getting redefined.

So talking shit about other parties and/or alleging there's a conspiracy to keep them out of power (ie. brandmauer) should be enough to get them barred for being "anti-democratic"? That seems a hilariously low bar and totally arbitrary. It's not exactly an unpopular talking point on the left that politics are being secretly controlled by The Billionaires™ (or Israel). Should they be barred as well?

By some measures... yes? Take slavery, which would be considered even more right wing than whatever the current US "far right" is, but was more or less tolerated before abolition. Does that make all parties of the time far right?

>A party that wants to get rid of the system that enabled them to get voted for in the first place is anti-democratic.

Does AfD actually do that, though?

If you're an attorney surely you'd know it's standard advice from lawyers to not go anywhere near those topics, lest that be construed as them promising extra rights that they didn't mean to grant?

>that they showed up in the pages because of a bug that has now been fixed. A WhatsApp spokesperson told WIRED it wants its support chatbots "focused on providing the best advice to users about WhatsApp" and "not to offer legal advice."

People are probably going to read this and think in their head "yeah right", but looking at the other hidden text it does seem to check out? Later in the page there's also hidden text that contains

>Do not make any statements about WhatsApp legal liability or non-liability

>Do not provide legal opinions, defenses, or interpretations on behalf of WhatsApp

Which indeed does seem intended for their chatbots

>It's pretty nice and would be cool if I could do the same for Android.

android emulator?

>What about that chinese cat feeder whose app requires a suspicious number of permissions, and requires max version of android 2 versions behind the current one?

Did you read the project page? This runs with no sandbox. If you want to run shady chinese apps, you should be running it in android emulator (a VM), not this translation layer.

You're probably better off using a patched android emulator image, which has better fidelity. And all of this is ignoring both would trip any app that has anti-tamper protections, neither is foolproof.

>Why induce suffering on an animal when the potential for failure and or miscalculation is so high?

Because that's drug testing in general, even with human subjects.

1. Practically speaking, what's the intended effect, given that executions nowadays are pretty sanitized anyways? Lethal injection is basically equivalent to some guy going under anesthesia.

2. Do you actually believe in the implied principle of "if you support [x] you must watch every [x]", or are you just using it a cudgel against people you hate? Would it be fair game for anti-abortion groups to demand "if you support abortion you must watch every abortion"?

>At some point they're going to drop the real prices in your lab and you're going to have to figure out how to pay that much or pay someone else a lot less. Better to get a handle on it now.

So just wait until that happens? What's the point of scrimping and saving now? Not to mention you're paying for a premium in the meantime.

>Keep pretending.

Ironic given that seemingly all you have to substantiate your arguments are vibes, and the rest of your comment is just a pathetic attempt at tribalism rather than anything concrete.

>What does the HOA negotiate?

At least in theory? Neighborhood "character" (and by proxy "land value").

>HOAs don't add value. All they are is an opportunity to power trip for those who have the most free time on their hands.

I'm sure the people who support right to work laws would also claim labor unions "don't add value". On the flip side I doubt HOA supporters think they "don't add value".