snooggums

They say Biden is still waiting to talk to Trump to this very day.

Having security cameras that malicious businesses sell so they can scrape your data and share video with the police without your informed consent is a dystopian nightmare.

Having your own security system that is only accessed by you and those you intentionally share it with is not.

I can’t remotely see if an important package was delivered with a regular doorbell.

These attitudes often stem from their inability to form relationships.

Because of how they think making them have awful personalities.

We are well past the tipping point of malicious websites being indistinguishable from legit sites unless tou pay attention to extra informatjon like the address bar. I would say that most of the websites I used to enjoy have gone to shit between ads and ditching their better writers for cheaper staff or AI. Most of the internet is crap.

But there is stilll enough helpful content that the whoe thing isn’t worthless and I doubt it ever will be.

I am adding this disclaimer due to repeated questions about the genuine authenticity of Popsie Funk and his music.

I don’t think that the artist in question is faking this.

All that being said, while this particular case isn’t, I suppose one could imagine such a “trying to pretend to be human” artist existing.

They were pretending, and added the disclaimer because people bugged them about it. They still worded the disclaimer as if Popsie Funk was a real person (his music).

The internet will never be useless. There will always be a large number of sites that are not capitalist hellholes that only exist to steal user’s data or scam users or do other malicious things. This may be down to things like credit unions, federated social media, and non-profits that exist to make the world better, but there will always be something that is out there that keeps it from being useless.

I can’t think of any sayings or phrasings that would be universal across the entire globe.

That would also require a lawyer since it gets into the terms and conditions and other legalese

That would be something the company would need to answer.

I know a regular bank would need records for at least 7 years after closing an account so they have a record the account was closed, even if you had no other activity. An online account might need to be deactivated or closed or whatever term they use for ‘can’t do anything with the account’ for 7 years if they treat that like closing an account.

Contacting their support would be the only way to get a clear answer on their policy and how it applies to your account, and then talk to a lawyer if you don’t agree with their policy.

A common legal requirement for record keeping is 7 years in the US, as they noted in the quote, although some types of records may need to be kept longer. We are not 7 years out from 2018, so still within that standard window.

I have no idea if there is a way around it, and a lawyer would be the right person to provide advice.

As for changing 2fa when you no longer have the phone, the best you can do without a lawyer is contact their support and escalate to a supervisor if they don’t have a way to update that ready to go. First level support will generally not be able to handle that kind of thing, so be ready to escalate. No need tonstart off with any legal threats, just plainly state what the situation is and hownimportant it is to you and there is a high chance of getting the 2fa updated even if you can’t get the account closed.

The fact that people know there are pre-compiled blobs in open source means they have an informed reason to avoid the software!

Buuuuuurrrrn!

They do have unrealistic expectations.

Those might include standards, limited preferences, or an expectation that a relationship is just going to magically happen despite not doing the things that are necessary for a relationship to start.

Most of the people that fit your description that I knew in the 90s had relationships with other outcasts, the people they hung out with. Hell, I probably could have fit that description and had no issues dating!

‘Normal women’ includes all kinds of women, but the context implies that they are choosing some kind of stereotypical type of woman which is limiting their dating pool. Their bitterness and hatred comes from not changing their behavior to attract the type of women they were interested in.

It is not illegal everywhere.

Nobody is celibate against their will. They might have difficulty getting into relationships, but they are also choosing not to use the services of sex workers.

Incels are defined by how they think, not what they are.

Adding “those” in front also alienates them further. So by saying “those people”, you are distancing yourself from them, despite them being your family.

Great observation!

“Those people” can be a racist or classist dog whistle, but isn’t always, and also there isn’t really an alternative.

The vast majority of the time ‘they’ or ‘them’ works in the same sentence as ‘those people’ when refering a goup since you already need context for who you are referring to. I can’t even think of an example where they or them doesn’t fit.

Description of a group of white people from Georgia.

• I heard they like fried chicken.

• I heard those people like fried chicken.

Hell, the second one sounds racist even after making it clear I was talking about white people, and I typed the words!