mdhb

12 ms·

211.
New Bill Would Give Marco Rubio "Thought Police" Power to Revoke U.S. Passports(theintercept.com)
93 points by mdhb 1y ago|32 comments
212.
by mdhb 1y ago
You have read a history book though right? Like you are familiar with what happened specifically on the metric of needless deaths when nobody killed him earlier?
213.
by mdhb 1y ago
For the fifth or sixth time now, your lack of reading comprehension has lead to a situation where you responded to the post you wish was written rather than the one that was actually written. I said I was laughing at you, not that you offen
214.
by mdhb 1y ago
The problem here is that you are very clearly incapable of being able to do that and there’s a group of people very politely and patiently trying to point out to you the flaws in your own logic and your only response is to continue sniffing
215.
by mdhb 1y ago
More a case of it’s very clear that you think you’re much more intelligent than everyone else around you thinks you are. Of course it’s a natural fit. You couldn’t have provided a clearer explanation with that response it genuinely made me
216.
Comcast Executives Warn Workers to Not Say the Wrong Thing About Charlie Kirk(404media.co)
48 points by mdhb 1y ago|20 comments
217.
by mdhb 1y ago
I guess to be fair you’ve actually provided an incredibly clear insight into how and why you end up thinking someone like Tucker is a reliable source of information. I don’t think in the way you intended to do so at all but I’m suddenly a l
218.
by mdhb 1y ago
I don’t understand in what universe you think you objectively answered it to the best of your ability when you literally didn’t respond to a single point in the question and just talked about another topic entirely. It’s not a trick questio
219.
by mdhb 1y ago
Not trying to be rude but that answer is in no way related to the questions I was asking.
220.
by mdhb 1y ago
Is there something special about you that has you convinced you’re not being tricked? Like do you think you have some exceptionally good bullshit detector? I’m genuinely curious about the mentality here. What lead you to believe you can tak
221.
by mdhb 1y ago
There is ample evidence to say without any shadow of a doubt that Tucker Carlson is not an honest broker, has never been an honest broker and will never be an honest broker. He has been caught multiple times holding completely different bel
222.
How Palantir is mapping the nation’s data(theconversation.com)
230 points by mdhb 1y ago|86 comments
223.
by mdhb 1y ago
No not at all, it is done completely differently though. Before when I was talking about the needle in a haystack problem which is the biggest weakness of the modern big data era. So to give a really concrete example imagine you need to mee
224.
Meta employees say they saw child abuse in VR before company blocked research(nbcnews.com)
3 points by mdhb 1y ago|0 comments
225.
by mdhb 1y ago
I’m explicitly making the argument that you should act as though your phone (and any other devices) can and will be searched by someone at the most inconvenient point possible and assume that that search isn’t necessarily tied in any meanin
226.
by mdhb 1y ago
You not having a phone is absolutely not a meaningful barrier towards identifying you in a crowd when things like ClearView exist. It will only make you stand out as someone who’s trying not to be known and get you towards the top of the li
227.
by mdhb 1y ago
It’s very clear that you just started thinking about this topic in the last hour but for some reason you’ve got a real unearned confidence in what you’re saying. I have very good reasons to know what I’m talking about here but again, I’m no
228.
by mdhb 1y ago
I’m not looking to argue with you here. You can take the advice or leave it but I will leave you with one quick tale to say that around the late 90s / early 2000s employees at GCHQ used to have a rule that when they were on their way t
229.
by mdhb 1y ago
I think you can still go to a protest with a phone just fine honestly. The fact that there are a lot of people there is actually the strength of it. I’d probably think carefully about what you want to use it for and what I had on there thou
230.
by mdhb 1y ago
This is dumb advice that doesn’t match any kind of realistic threat model. It’s like something you saw in a movie I think. The entire modern game is very literally, don’t be interesting and don’t do weird shit that normal people wouldn’t do
231.
by mdhb 1y ago
What on earth are you talking about… that is not even a little bit true. I think you’re over complicating this in your head quite a bit. Here’s something [1] that’s was public almost 20 years ago at this point. Things have advanced a lot si
232.
by mdhb 1y ago
No phone actually stands out a lot in real life surveillance systems and will very quickly get you a bunch of additional attention because it’s so unusual. Not usually that I’m aware of as a single data point in any system but if there are
233.
US tech enabled the surveillance and detention of large populations in China(apnews.com)
23 points by mdhb 1y ago|2 comments
234.
by mdhb 1y ago
This is unfortunately entirely seperate from that other article. FTA: > Attaullah Baig, who served as head of security for WhatsApp from 2021 to 2025, claims that approximately 1,500 engineers had unrestricted access to user data without
235.
Ex-WhatsApp cybersecurity head says Meta endangered billions of users(theguardian.com)
347 points by mdhb 1y ago|182 comments
236.
by mdhb 1y ago
It’s actually much more accurate and helpful than the one in the article which is itself editorialised. This just states the main outcome neutrally.
237.
Meta suppressed research on child safety, employees say(washingtonpost.com)
509 points by mdhb 1y ago|347 comments
238.
by mdhb 1y ago
Which is not even in the same ballpark as what you originally wrote.
239.
by mdhb 1y ago
That is both not true and not what is in the book.
240.
by mdhb 1y ago
Back in reality however… Trump very publicly talked about sending Zuck to jail just a few months ago.

More ›