deleted by creator

Fuck this one guy in particular.

I think you actually usually can get them to list them all, never much interested, they’re all going to be completely random names you never heard of, just so long as I can reject them all, that’s all I care about, otherwise I have to browse a different website on principle.

I’ve read that masks do not actually thwart these systems.

Didn’t know they’d taken out the storage drives but I was aware despite my general ignorance that it’s not turnkey ready to go. I guess what I’m wondering is, is there any part of the of the process involved in designing and building such a supercomputing cluster that is already taken care by buying it in the manner that it has been sold and could that in any way offset the increased costs of trying to bring such a cluster online rather than starting from scratch? I’m not saying it is the case, so much as wondering aloud for anyone with expertise to chime in, to see if that’s a way it could make sense.

I understand there’s a mountain to climb to bring this thing in to a usable state for anyone, but could it maybe get you to base camp more quickly?

Does the hardware being all so arranged as it is in this manner to create a supercomputer make any difference to that evaluation? Like does the work of putting all the outdated hardware together in the complex way needed to make it functional for supercomputing make it potentially cheaper than buying more modern hardware but having to build it all yourself?

As part of just living in… the world, I already kind of assumed it was possible for some parties, credit card companies in particular, to pry in to my financial activity and also interested governments to compel banks to hand over whatever they had, and/or possibly just hand over everything about everyone to government all the time automatically. This was bad enough, however, even I was surprised and shocked to learn how bad it was with my own bank when they sent me a letter gleefully telling me that as of the date of the letter they had now managed to sell my data to even more 3rd parties. I was not, up until that point aware that they were selling my data at all, and that 3rd parties (other than the credit card company) were getting access to it not just because of powers to compel, like people might expect of governments, but purely because the bank was literally handing it over to whoever was willing to pay for it, no consent on my part necessary. I don’t know what changed that required them to apparently have to now disclose this to me, but I assume that they were forced, hence the letter. The sneaky motherfuckers didn’t frame it that way though, not “due to recent legislation the bank is obliged to inform you blah blah blah”, no just “good news removed, we were selling your data, we still are, but we used to too, and now we’re selling it to more people, hope you like egregiously unethical behaviour because we put a travesty in to our travesty so you can experience a travesty while processing the first travesty”.

Nah they really like it, it’s making me feel like a weird uncaring sociopath that I’m just really not that interested in the multiple daily photos, but the rest of us around the person sharing can’t seem to get enough of it. I don’t know why I don’t care so much, I’ve met the kid and they’re nice enough, I hope I’m someone they’ll be glad to have in their lives and form an affection for but you can’t really convincingly fake intense interest and emotional investment and much as I’d like it to be, that just isn’t my natural reaction. I like to think if I have ever have kids it’d be different otherwise the poor kid would have to deal with someone totally uninterested for the rest of their lives.

I’m surprised it would be on the play store since presumably if you were a carrier or creditor of some kind you want this installed in a pretty clandestine way and wouldn’t want to draw attention to it by having an app store listing.

Hmm. But like there’s stuff in there that isn’t even part of the substance of what you said. Like the call to action at the end. That’s the type of thing you’d want to be pretty sure you really wanted to do in some circumstance where you want to communicate on a matter in plain sight but obscure your identity, as such a matter would presumably be pretty important and high stakes.

Hedging my bets in trying to make my statements correct. Phrasing as I did, my statements are true if it’s just a few companies under potential scrutiny or all car companies in the US so it’s the truest way to write with the facts I haven’t my disposal.

This sounds good and promising but it’s should be noted that they do not have to answer to the FTC according to this article, it has merely been recommended in a letter to the FTC by one senator that they should investigate some specific car companies. There doesn’t seem to be any new way in which they are more or less accountable to the FTC than they were or weren’t already and there’s no obligation on the strength of this letter to do any investigation nor any guarantee of a positive outcome if they did. A rare and nice little show of support from a member of the political class for privacy rights but nothing substantive or concrete.

I really feel very uncomfortable with the notion of tracking the kids anyway. Arming them with knowledge as best as possible, and as usual showing interest in their behaviour to try and look as best as possible for signs of problems but ultimately kids are still people with their own lives even if people in development. Yes you need to protect them, to a certain extent, but ultimately some of this is no business but their own. You can try to educate and forewarn and hope some of it sticks but the tendency from my memory of being a kid is that that tends to be met with an eye-roll, this is probably where the temptation comes from to track children or drastically restrict the choices they’re able to make so they can’t ignore you but this is hardly a great way for that person in development to ultimately… develop.

This is dicey though, not least because as yet another random person on the internet offering their unsolicited opinion, I don’t even have kids, and if you follow my logic to extremis, you basically have, “let the kids just figure it out on their own they’ll be fine” which definitely won’t apply to everything and can have disastrous consequences in some contexts. But nevertheless I think this concept of tracking, either covertly, or overtly with the intention of making a kind of panopticon effect for the kids, is likely ineffective but even if effective, is indicative of something going wrong with the intent of the surveillance.

So, what happens if you don’t stop using so to start sentences?

I’m new to Simple Login, though I’ve used throwaway addresses like mytrashmail (with no link to my real email of course) for a while. What I wonder is, if Sony are fussy about Proton, why do simplelogin domains not trip them up? That would seem even dodgier if you thought only services like Google’s were trustworthy.

Shit scared of this myself, that’s why I have an email client even though I was pretty happy with the web browser. At least there’s local copies. Already lost my hotmail account in a similar manner. Suddenly my password was considered incorrect, no means of recovery because I wasn’t keen on giving them personal info. I guess this somewhat proved their point but it all seems a bit fucked. My password was fine, had been using it since 1998.

I had this before, though not through a direct communication. Someone had gotten my email credentials somehow and installed a company’s app and made an account. When I went through the support pages on the company’s site to find out how to delete the account the only listed way was through the app itself.

They were accommodating and helpful when I emailed the company about it though. I just told them that I can’t agree to the privacy policy and thus cannot install the app but still need the account to be deleted. They did it.

But they seemed to argue that the cohort born after 1889 were exposed to it as children and that’s what made them weaker against the 1918 outbreak, which seems to run counter to received wisdom about immunity.

Maybe I misinterpreted and as you’re saying, they were arguing that the cohort born after 1889 weren’t exposed and were thus had less immune defence against the 1918 virus. It’s just, that’s also confusing because I thought the whole thing they were trying to explain was why people who otherwise mightn’t be as strongly affected by a novel influenza virus, generally (young healthy adults), seemed in this case to be affected more so than in comparable outbreaks. If people born before 1889 had prior exposure to a similar virus to the then novel, 1918 influenza virus and were thus, a little bit better protected against it, that would manifest in an unusually lower number of older people being as badly stricken not a higher than usual number of young people. Also if the logic follows, it would imply that for young healthy people not to be as affected as they had seemed to be in 1918, or in any case of a novel influenza virus outbreak, they would normally have to have been partially exposed to a similar virus, but that would mean either that every novel influenza virus affected a cohort not usually as badly affected meaning paradoxically that in fact that cohort would seem to usually be that strongly affected by novel viruses, or that somehow coincidentally every such novel influenza virus outbreak before had had a similar preceding outbreak timed to give that cohort time to form antibodies.

Near the end of the article they link to a paper about how a virus emerging prior to the 1918 influenza pandemic may have left young healthy adults specifically, more vulnerable than usual because of their childhood exposure to this prior virus. I don’t actually understand how that works and the paper is going over my head a bit and is long and detailed. Anyone get how the prior exposure would leave one more vulnerable?

?