

It is cheating. I’m not sure what this weird take is. He used means that are against the rules of play to become statistically better than other players and rise in the ranks. Boosting and account sharing are against the rules. it is cheating.
It is cheating. I’m not sure what this weird take is. He used means that are against the rules of play to become statistically better than other players and rise in the ranks. Boosting and account sharing are against the rules. it is cheating.
1011000 is binary for 88
So I learned a physics lesson on a forklift. I backed up beside a pallet on the ground and looked back there to line myself up. What I didn’t see was the wooden 2x4 hanging off of the pallet directly in the path of the forklift driving in reverse. So I ran over the board and loony tunes style, the board flew up through the cabin smacking me dead on the side of the face.
Honestly I think it’s a terrible precedent to set. Now the government can just say they don’t like XYZ website and are banning it. That wasn’t really something they did 10 years ago. Unless of course it was illegal activity. But I don’t think this is a net win for the internet. Regardless of what decision has been made, freedoms were removed and citizens’ rights were sidestepped for political means. I think it shouldn’t be the government’s job to protect us from ourselves.
I was totally onboard with banning tiktok on government computers and I was completely on board with the government publicly expressing concerns over the motives of tiktok as a business. That’s where I personally believe this should have stopped. Inform the people of the danger and then let them decide what to do with that information.
The problem with that idea though, is that nation-wide, citizens’ trust in the government is at an all-time low. So even if the government said tiktok is bad and you shouldn’t use it, people already don’t trust the government. Maybe they should work on regaining the trust their people had for them 65 years ago before it tries to get people to behave how they think we should.
The users and posts in instance B are invisible to users in instance A. Regardless of if the messages are in instance C
Instance C is unrelated to A and B blocking each other. Why wouldn’t it be able to see posts from either unless it was also blocked?
And silicon valley
Cool man, you’re still saying two completely different things. You either know what you’re doing or you spin your wheels installing windows fresh for an ENTIRE WORK DAY. There is no both.
Here, since you don’t know how to do it efficiently, let me learn you some. I configure my installer using a 3rd party program more often than not but that doesn’t make the biggest time difference to me. I use Rufus which gives you the option to preconfigure a local admin profile as well as skip the various check boxes about tracking info. You can also skip use the Rufus app to set up an installer that will work on unsupported CPUs. Easy and fast. Lastly, when you get into the OOBE, before you click anything, shift + f10 pulls up an admin CMD where you can run OOBE/BYPASSNRO to skip the network requirement.
Windows 11 is virtually the same installation as windows 10 at that point
By the way, you have not been in IT since before I was born. Come on down off your high horse. 25 years is long enough to be stuck in the old ways. There is still room to learn and plenty of time to choose not to be angry at strangers on the internet.
It’s not harder to cancel than to sign up though. It’s a one or 2 clock process to cancel and a whole lot of card details entering to sign up.
You want some ugly crying anime time? Grave of the fireflies. The saddest movie studio Ghibli ever produced. If you don’t cry you might want to see a therapist. It’s what I show everyone who has ever told me “I don’t cry at movies.”
They disabled the local account for offline devices on all versions including IOT. The solution is to hit shift + f10 for CMD and then running OOBE\BYPASSNRO which enables that feature. But 90% of people setting up windows for the first time just create an account or use one they already have. Not that it’s better to do it that way. Just that it isn’t that difficult.
Cool story bro. You must be so good at computer yet you can’t install windows. Also very cool that you think you know how old I am or what my experience is. I can do either blindfolded and have been doing so for decades. It’s really not that impressive. This is low level IT shit. Let’s all stand and applaud this guy who can’t install windows. Lol
I never said it was. It’s also not the developers job to provide you the service on the platform of your choice. It’s the developers job to protect the companies servers and data. It’s the company’s job to provide you the service and it’s your job to decide to use it or not. And it sounds like you don’t like the means of service provision. So don’t use it. Easy enough.
It’s not questionable at all to assume that a user rooting and installing their own OS is a security risk. That’s the entire premise of zero trust. I’m sure Graphene OS is secure and better for user privacy when configured properly. But you can’t trust that an end user will configure it properly. That’s what I am saying and have been saying since the first message. You can’t trust the user to be security minded. Ultimately, the best thing you can do as a developer or a business is support a known quantity of software and hardware configurations and that likely means only supporting OEM installed ROMs.
It’s not for your security. It’s for the company’s security. You’re really dense you know that. This is not about you and it’s not about Google. What I’m saying is, people suck ass. So to protect themselves from people sucking ass, they restrict access to their system to their terms. Completely fair if you ask me.
You can go cry Google bad all you want. I might even agree Google is bad. But this is not a Google thing. It’s an IT security thing. The banks and MFA providers are security first businesses. They will make the decision that protect them first and it makes sense for them to do so. If you owned a bank, there is a high likelihood you would make similar decisions that end users don’t quite understand.
As far as McDonald’s is concerned, who the fuck knows what their developers are doing. That app is trash anyways.
You’re implying that Google is causing these apps to not support custom OSs. But it’s literally not true. These apps are just not supporting custom OSs because their businesses don’t want to support non-standard platforms for security purposes. Tons of banks do not support custom OSs. It has nothing to do with Google and everything to do with not trusting the user which is 100% the correct approach for cyber security.
This has very little to do with Google. Custom OS’s in general are being restricted by these apps, not Graphene in particular. All custom OS’s and root access devices are inherently less secure, even if they are privacy focused OS’s.
In IT this is called a zero trust. You don’t trust anything you cannot verify yourself. And a user installed OS is not something anyone can verify other than the installing user. Obviously for your own security you have your own zero trust policy if you are using something like Graphene, but these companies aren’t making it more secure for you as a user, they’re covering their asses in case there are holes in security they cannot account for.
Most banks restrict custom ROM and root access devices for security purposes. Same with MFA apps. I get it. From an IT security perspective, restrictions on software compatibility limit the number of failure points. Even if you find a custom OS that is more secure as an OS, it is installed through opening up your device to security risk and there is no real requirement for you to close up that security risk afterward. My company has made the same choice to restrict supported platforms for our services.
McDonald’s app restricting the OS is probably some security decision they made because it’s more secure even when they probably don’t need it though.
Yes, you are trying to be pedantic by pointing out that account boosting is not cheating. But it is cheating so not only are you being pedantic, you are wrong .