The “I find it fucking disgusting, bro!” fraction probably isn’t here. Or if they are, they are probably smart enough not to walk into this wood chipper.

There is a strong correlation between shame people feel for having tried it before or for not being able to admit to themselves that they feel this way and then how loud they get. Pair that with religiosity or just a very conservative environment and upbringing and you get the aforementioned bros. It’s more about how they feel, how insecure they are, than about anything physically off-putting. And as somebody who once reacted poorly to being hit on by a lovely Aussie, I think it’s also the somewhat unexpected element of it. We are pattern recognisers. Heterosexual is the majority. We can easily get freaked out by something that’s different. And a lot of the LGBTQ+ folks are still not living their romance in public (if there is some and they also want to) because they avoid wood chippers society has an unfortunately abundant supply of for them.

I’m an alien. I’m a legal alien.

I think if I was caught like this, the last thing I’d want to do is talk to the media about it. Not even under a pseudonym. But this story is probably not here to make Google feel bad and return some of the money. This is a reminder for parents everywhere to review payment and parental settings on anything their kids use online. You can be smug enough to say my 8yo doesn’t stream on Twitch or whatever because why tf would you let them anyway. But you’re deleting the credit card off of Google Play because you forgot it was there because parenting makes you forgetful at times.

My opinion as another cis dude: there are three things at play. (1) What is the definition of “feminism?” If you believe that women and men and everybody in between and beyond are equally worthy members of society and should not be discriminated against in any way, then you fit my definition and can call yourself a feminist. (2) I recognize that this is a hot button issue for some people unfortunately. I also see that other people may operate under a different definition. I give shit to anybody with opinions on the matter that go against (1). I don’t necessarily use the word “feminist” in that context because some words - good words! - have a way of closing people off like an oyster. “Woke” and “feminism” are two examples. Worthy concepts behind both in my view but the mere mention makes some people stop listening. Especially those who would benefit from widening their horizons. Humans are capable of rational thought but we don’t always do or behave that way. I’m dogmatic in my opinion but I’m not dogmatic in the language that I use so I try and adjust it to fit the situation. (3) Even among supposed allies you’ll find oddballs. You don’t want to be a self-professed feminist who mansplains feminism, just as an example.

In this mixed minefield, I think I want to be judged more by my actions than the terms I use.

The premise seems to suggest that the target companies’ security measures remain locked in at current levels. So while the attacker models scheme and plan and infiltrate, they do not notice or they do nothing. I don’t think that would be realistic.

I also don’t think the targeted companies don’t already feed all their data into some models. There will be beaches and poorly configured LLMs - the prize won’t be as juicy, the impact of the grand conspiracy won’t be as big.

I think the sky will not fall here.

They are a bit vague on this but I suspect all of these attack vectors start with LEOs having physical access to the unlocked phone. They then set up a trusted desktop without the phone owners knowing.

Which is clever, to be fair. Whether or not that’s legal is already a court case. The law is so frightfully grey.

The other ones I mentioned.

China’s biggest denomination is CNY 100 or about USD 15. India pulled its largest denomination bill from circulation maybe 5 years ago. The US stopped doing anything above USD 100 a while ago. Bigger denominations are a counterfeit and bribery risk.

Nobody cares about the Swiss Franc in cash outside of Switzerland. There are 10 million or thereabouts Swiss people. All the other currencies are used in much larger populations, three-figure millions at the lower end.

but would an EU-style freedom of movement remove that by allowing citizens of both Canada and US cross freely…?

Captain Obvious says yes.

It should be noted that not all that glitters is gold. At various times, Schengen member countries have reinstated border checks. Not at every border crossing but randomly checking people. Often unfortunately in accordance with the Family Guy police stop meme Pantone skin color chart. Germany is doing it at great cost as an internal political maneuver. Italy is doing it to people coming from Spain post the run on Ceuta. At the height of the Syrian refugee crisis every EU country along the way did it. Free movement is the first victim of anti-immigration politics everywhere. There is an argument to be made that this lofty ideal inked on paper in the 90s was too lofty for its own good in a realpolitik kind of way.

Given the current US administration and the crap they’re pulling on their friendly neighbours to the north there is no way this will happen. This century, if I had to put a time frame on it. This is what happens when the toddlers run diplomacy. Earning respect takes ages, losing it takes no time at all.

I may be white, sensitive, and full of bullshit. But I’m not American!

Sensitive? WTF do you mean sensitive? I’m not sensitive. Thank you for rage baiting with us today.

Seriously, I would stop doing that if I were you. Not for the esthetic or because there is inherently anything wrong with doing that. You’re going to become bycatch when people look to catch bots and sloppers in a wide net.

Any post formatted like that comes straight out of an LLM. No user, no matter how dedicated or how mad, would take the time to format headers and bullet points.

Reposting stuff from reddit and posting whatever the LLM spat out. As far as I’m concerned, you are a contributing factor to a stagnant user base here.

Asked and answered.

Sole custody? Not a big chance unless the other parent becomes criminal, sick to the point where they can no longer take care of the child, or worse.

Japan is embarking on a journey of allowing split custody. That concept is new though because we love a law with tradition that goes back to the Heian era. My layman guess would be they will somehow exclude foreign passport holders without PR, just on principle.

Forgive me for being this blunt: your friend is effed. They didn’t get their kid a passport. They are at the mercy of the Japanese courts. And even if they had the passport and could ‘go on vacation’ to the US, there is a very good chance the US courts would eventually send the kid back. There is international law at play to prevent child abductions, chief among it the Hague convention, to which the US and finally also Japan are signatories. Your friend’s best chance is a stable life in Japan, a good lawyer, and hopefully no marks on the record that diminishes their chances. Naiveté isn’t a defense. If the friend didn’t know that if the marriage went south this could be the outcome that’s regrettable but also the toughest of luck.

Also, we only get half the story on hearsay. The other parent’s story might paint a very different picture.

Personally, I look to the user side for lack of intelligence.

There are few feces filled salvoes flung at Melon Usk that I would object to. This is not one of them. The question I have though is this: do we need a new Twitter? It had its time in the sun but most people look back at it through rose tinted glasses. Before the takeover by the son of South African emerald mine owners, Twitter was in deep trouble. It had cultural relevance but was a financial flop. It benefited from being the first service of its kind with sufficient reach. I don’t think Twitter would have survived without the Nazi saluting shithead either. Its decline would have been more graceful by comparison. It would have done it without the bullshit tsunami emanating from the top, it wouldn’t have had the money to digitally undress people or other adventures in so-called AI, but I believe it would have faded anyway. People have split up from the one consensus platform to many different ones and making people switch is hard. So coming back now with a new Twitter is like announcing we will electrocute another Topsy next week. That turned heads more than a century ago but we have moved on.

And why is slop so sloppy slop slop? Consider this question asked and answered by yourself.

But now they want a court to treat that click as though an 8-year-old knowingly negotiated away her right to have these issues heard. It’s insulting.

In the court of public opinion, sharpen your pitchforks, light your torches, and move on Roblox HQ. This is objectively a silly argument.

Made in a court of law. Where lawyers play by different established rules. Where they are often compelled by those rules to pursue every possible avenue to get the best result for their client. Where they may be held accountable when mishandling their case. Where company execs push their own moral compass out of the way not because they believe this argument but out of a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. It’s a clusterfuck of obligations.

My gut feeling is they probably know this argument won’t hold up in court. But it may just knock whatever punishment awaits them down a peg or two.

I’m sure many people can relate. I’m not sure how helpful this is. You sound like you’re not from an area currently in a state of war or suffering from famine. So you’re probably somewhere where you could try to talk a therapist.