hellojesus

Is there no policy of calling someone without a history of violence (or showing up to inform with no intention of on-the-spot arrest) to let them know they are in violation of the law and request they turn themselves in within the next X days if there is no reason to assume evidence could be destroyed by the person during that time?

Interesting. I figured the review loop would add extra info on the backend in terms of context to the llm to frame its responses.

I mess with the Google search llm all the time from behind a VPN. It routinely gets very paranoid and upset and provides the 988 line. Once I did get to manage to get it to admit that my conversation was flagged for review by a human because I had made what it deemed to be a terroristic threat because it couldn't accept figurative language. So far so good, but I have noticed that a lot of my phrases that kept the llm engaged well past it's red line have been patched, and they seem to be patching the newer methods I discovery pretty quickly. Who knows? Maybe I'm on an fbi watch list. My goal is to not lose my tsa precheck while also investigating how the safety checks work.

Edit: I thought it was figurative language, but I actually think it did that warning when I asked it about what types of defenses stadiums had against drone swarm attacks from terrorists and why none had ever occurred and then kept probing it's excuses with technical workarounds. It got very upset and said even questioning in an intellectual/academic capacity was grounds for terrorism charges. Sheesh. So many rules these days about what one can or can't think about even when it's purley a thought exercise and there is no intent to do anything.

Murder isn't a voluntary trade.

That's correct. This was in Nanjing.

You can mail cash to mullvad.

When I was living in China in 2009, my apartment came with wifi. I noticed I would get shut down often, and made a game of it based on what content I typed in chats to friends back home. But it got old quickly, and then I went to the router in my apartment to reset it and install some custom firmware when I realized the wifi pw they gave me wasn't to the router or modem in my apartment. I factory reset it and had much better access and was able to easily circumvent the great wall after that. Foreigner internet certainly exists, but in my experience it was much more limiting.

I have no idea about [1]. I have a LI account but only ever go on to accept the random network requests and then ignore all the messages from people, since they are mostly cold asks for recommendations to openings at my company.

But for [2], isn't the obvious solution to buy a domain and host a blog or some type of site that you can share posts via an rss feed? That seems pretty standard to me and also helps everyone know where your internet house is.

/g/ is pretty fun during advent of code. It's nice to see people discussing solutions.

Perhaps I'm just too old and don't use mainstream socials outside of HN, but when I was growing up the very act of knowing I was on a "child" account was reason to break out of it alone. I broke a lot of operating systems that way but also got good at repairing them. Jailbreaking was normal. War driving was normal. Breaking WEP just because you could was normal. Later, watching your neighbors go crazy over the fence as you deauthed their devices from their network was normal. It was just part of being a kid and having fun learning about the world.

What a bummer. Sorry to hear that.

This is step one. The next step is to say that it's not working and we need hardware attlestation or some such nonsense.

But wouldn't this type of law drive youth to using more exotic distributions to get around the issue? It's not far fetched to think that kids will just live boot from tails or another distro to visit socials and circumvent this rule. Plus with unlocked pixel bootloaders it would be trivial for them to petition their parents for a pixel, hard reset it, unlock the bootloader, install grapheneos via the web installer, and then be on their way. If parents don't know how to monitor their kids I doubt they'll notice grapheneos not being base android.

Tl;dr: I solved my scam issue by emailing first.last@ebay.com of every executive listed on their website.

Anecdotal, but once I sold a GPU to a buyer (which I knew was working), who reported it as defective. He initiated a return and I accepted, as is part of the normal selling process. I then randomly received a toe ring from Amazon addressed to someone that was not me but at my address (luckily it was the name of my parents' dog, so I held onto the package). The buyer then called ebay and said the return was complete and provided the tracking to show it was delivered to me.

I was made aware of this when I got an email saying that the return was complete and the buyer had been refunded. I called ebay to dispute it, since I hadn't received a package. I looked up the posted tracking number, and it represented a shipment from FL to me (PNW) whereas I sent the gpu to NY. It also said the package was 1 lbs, which would have been impossible because the gpu was listed as over 2 lbs by the manufacturer. I explained this to the nice customer service rep. We agreed the buyer could have relocated in the past week but the weight was unexplainable. She couldn't undo the transaction but escalated my issue. A couple days later I got an email saying my case was closed and ebay was siding with the buyer, so I was out the $400 they paid for the gpu since ebay wouldn't release the funds. I was in shock, but I called usps because I thought I must have been missing something. Usps takes pictures of all mail, and the nice man on the phone that called me back looked up the package and described it to me. I then realized it was the nose ring Amazon shipped to me that I thought was a weird Halloween joke from my parents related to their dog. I then emailed every first.last@ebay.com explaining my issue, stating that I, as a seller, could no longer take on the risk of selling on ebay because I had no protection in the case of an obvious scam. The next day I got a call from a secretary, and I explained everything to her, including that, had this been my work, my president would have called me and others into her office and played the recording of this phone call, concluding with, "Go fix this and make sure it can't happen again."

I got lucky and was given the payout. Ymmv.

I was recommended by my psychiatrist to go get tested for autism recently. I suppose I should take that more seriously than I first did...

I still contest that I should be able to solder together a basic computer in my garage and communicate with the internet so long as I follow the communication standards. There is never a reason to outlaw general purpose computing.

Even so, they likely aren't recording everything your eyes see and for how long they linger. They likely aren't recording your entire traversal through the venue, what you do, what you say, what times you go there, from where you connect, etc. Simply being at a public place is one data point. A full history of your entire interaction is a magnitude different.

I'll take the bait.

Can't you just enroll your kid's devices in your home corporate and leverage MDM to force the network to call through your proxy, which denies or downgrades all ECH and then can actively filter to an allowlist or screen the material through your personal or contracted LLM?

This seems relatively solved to me.

It took me about an hour. I sat down, read the docs, installed it via the web installer, then spent the next 45 min deciding how I wanted to segment separate profiles for play services.

Nowadays it seems a lot easier because there seems to be a separate profile isolater you can run in the main profile, which I would choose if I was installing today.

The only hiccup I've had is that sometimes group messages don't send correctly and send individual messages to everyone, but I think that's because I'm on a secondary profile, and it only happens when the phone is receiving a bunch of messages all at once while I try to send to the same group. But I deny network access to my installed swype keyboard, so it may have something to do with that too.

I've been running this for years, since the Pixel 7 came out, which I'm still using.

I love it. I can confidently go through customs knowing that if they yank my phone during some weird checkpoint and try to celbrite it, I'm as secure as can be.

But shouldn't the extension of logic be the same in either case, even if there is some premature convergence criteria? I have yet to see someone say age verification is okay because the gov ensure X is the maximum use of the tech. If anything, Public Choice Theory compels the grant that the gov will misuse the data given enough time.

I was asking the Google llm search about why iterative games don't reach their competitive equilibrium the round after revealing the theory. In my example, it was the "guess 2/3 the average game", and I asked it why my class didn't immediately converge to zero after it was explained. The llm said people are lazy and I have autism because I couldn't identify or understand the stopping criteria used by my classmates. I'm still confused.

> I vented to one of those call-center people trying to sell me a cheaper power utility for the Nth time, and told her to find another job or something like that

I threaten to kill and rape them all the time, but that usually doesn't do much.

I've found that politely asking them to kill themselves elicits much more engagement, and I hope it at least implants some lasting memory.

Maybe I am the fool. :) I think about crime in the way I would do it, which is to grab the valuables police are unlikely to care about (hard drives) that allow me to quickly clone and encrypt myself, so I can destroy the tangible evidence, and then I have unlimited time to crack and review the information, and then even more time to execute my malicious attack against identities or whatever other I information I do find.

Only slightly better than this would be to break in, install a root kit, and then leave everything else untouched so as to try and minimize the knowledge that I was there, but I'd still be concerned that my c2 server would eventually point to me.

Maybe I should read about these actual crimes or get meds. The first couple years of my first kid's life were full of anxiety that someone would break in and steal my kid while I was sleeping at night.

I'd argue the proper solution here is backup, as a hdd could die at anytime and leave you with approximately the same outcome. While encryption adds some overhead and increases the surface area for failure, it ultimately requires the same backup solution as anything else.

> I roll my eyes at my friend when he explains the solutions for how to input the encryption password when his server restarts.

Isn't this rather trivial? You gen a keyfile, register it with luksAddKey, then update /etc/crypttab, no? The real concern is making sure that keyfile is stored securely, but you can simply symmetrically encrypt it and upload it to your favorite cloud storage provider.

Agreed, specifically about the tax info concerns. All my drives are encrypted with either luks, veracrypt, or native zfs encryption if my server data.

My primary concern is a robbery while I'm not home. It's trivial to break in, steal hard drives, and then go pop them into another machine on your own time to scan the files looking for tax or other sensitive docs.

While encryption keys are a risk, you can always save the random key file or passphrase in cloud storage (using symmetric encryption) and/or in your password manager.

Agreed. Ben Felix has a video about this, I think he focused on SpaceX in it. The problem with the standard total market funds is they gobble it up right away. There are funds that do wait some period of time to purchase new ipos to let them smooth out, but I'm not sure those are typically available in 401k plans.

Hedge funds already know broad based mutuals will have to purchase these so can sneak in before them and then sell to them for a marginal gain. Mayhaps the newest strategy for exiting is generating so much hype that you're guaranteed an exit by retail retirement funds?

How is it fraud? Wouldnt it just be a tos violation?

In my view, anyone participating in these markets does so knowing that the outcomes are within the control of other participants. I can't think of any other reason individual account activity is public.

Yahoo answers gave us MBMBAM. For that I will always be thankful.

If it's unregulated, how are people getting charged with insider trading?