The police believe that the motive behind this hacking was to reduce network-related costs, as torrent transfers can be costly for internet service providers. KT, however, claims that it was merely trying to manage traffic on its network to ensure a smooth user experience.
Sounds like they admit it but object to the negative tone lol
This often happens to me on Windows with the Index so it might not even be a Linux specific issue
It’s good to be skeptical of institutions, just don’t go dismissing or accepting science based on ideological/class association, that’s how you get shit like Lysenkoism
I want to do stuff
If there are two or more cell towers within range of the phone and they have access to those towers they can triangulate the location of the phone already.
No, I mean, I’m saying I doubt they even really need the trucks, except maybe as an explanation of how they got the data legally.
I don’t buy that they don’t have direct access to the cell towers themselves
Thanks, I’ve never been diagnosed or anything but it’s something I’ve had trouble with all my life, kind of just learned to be very wary about various social situations because I’d get it wrong a lot.
Remember people’s names or faces
Maybe it returns to the carcass over a period of time?
Yeah I thought about it and I guess I’m wrong. I thought that maybe the ball still wouldn’t be faster if there was a perfectly flat surface for both objects to land on, but I imagined how it would be if the bowling ball and feather were actually very far apart, and of course they wouldn’t be travelling perpendicular to the platform, and the path of the feather would follow more of a curve. So a slight distance would be the same thing just less.
But they are being dropped at the same time for dramatic effect, so the earth will also be accelerating towards the feather at bowling ball speeds because the feather is next to the bowling ball, therefore they still land at the same time.
When articles were published about the EU Commission’s horrifyingly undemocratic approach, Ylva Johansson’s office at the European Commission responded by advertising on the platform X (formerly Twitter). They targeted advertisements (pro Chat Control) so that decision-makers in different countries would see them, but also so that they would not be seen by people suspected to be strongly against the proposal. The advertising was also targeted on the basis of religious and political affiliation and thus violated the EU’s own laws regarding micro-targeting. …
There was no technology that could scan communication without looking at it. Parts of the Council of Ministers therefore proposed that scanning should be excluded for politicians, the police and intelligence services, as well as anything classified as ‘professional secrets.’ Obviously, there were politicians who were afraid that their secrets would leak, but who had nothing against mass surveillance of the broader population.
Sounds very slimy all around
Most of the screenshots I see of Twitter posts aren’t from right wing extremists, but are still ignorant opinions and put-downs presented in an obnoxiously snarky way. The core of toxicity in Twitter isn’t about political affiliation, it’s about mean spirited anti-intellectual tribalism and people using ideals as a pretense to verbally abuse others.
Are there actually people in the loop? Are you sure it’s not all bots? It’s not like they will communicate with you at all about your ban aside from template emails.
Relevant Snowden quote:
Arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say
I pay for vpn service anonymously even though I probably don’t need to, as my main use is torrenting. I can see a remote possibility that vpn payment records at some point end up being used against pirates, even just as some kind of risk factor flagging, in the same vein as what you are saying: “If someone is paying for a vpn, surely they’re doing something bad?” In countries that really want to crack down on speech and human rights, vpns get banned outright to varying success, and if you can’t pay anonymously in that situation you’re pretty screwed, this hurts those people.
In general I think everyone should be trying for some level of actual privacy online as a matter of principle, just because of how everyone being fully tracked and observed puts way too much power in the hands of those watching.
The current administration and its agencies have clear contempt for any sort of crypto privacy they have shown in a variety of ways. The Tornado Cash sanction and criminal charges, recent Bitcoin mixer criminal charges, the proposed rule putting a “Primary Money Laundering Concern” black mark on people seeking crypto privacy in virtually any way… if it’s possible to still purchase online services privately after this, I’m sure they will go on to take further measures to try to close the “loophole”. They don’t want anyone doing things without being able to monitor them.
I can respect the opinion of someone who is not making any arguments. I can respect the opinion of someone who mostly makes bad arguments but sometimes makes good arguments. I probably won’t respect the opinion of someone who only makes terrible arguments, especially if they are also an asshole about it.
Cointelegraph might not be for someone who is very anti-crypto, but it’s a legit website with well researched articles, not a source of malware/scams/autogenerated spam.
Explicit types are just laziness, you should be catching exceptions anyways.