Good news! You can buy Murder Harem: Furry’s Vore Safari Edition (if that’s what you’re into) on Steam and nobody would ever know as long as you mark it as private while it’s in your basket! Assuming it works as they say you’ll still be able to play the game as normal but nobody else would know unless they directly log in to your account.

The faq doesn’t mention the new Steam Family stuff though. I’m guessing it’ll at least be hidden for parent accounts, but since parent accounts can control game access for child accounts that might not be as private?

it’s pretty shady to be looking for legal safe harbor for scammers who rob people all over the world every day.

This is an argument that happened entirely within your own head, not in this thread. I think I made it clear right from the start I’m against scammers and approve of (ethical) actions taken against them, but I’m also against people who dox, invade privacy, engage in vigilantism, and gain unauthorised access to other’s computer systems (particularly when it’s for profit and ego). These are not mutually exclusive, there is no disconnect there. I even gave an example of more appropriate actions to take against scammers, notably actions that are actually effective.

Criticism against “justice” porn is not remotely the same thing as condoning scammers. You’re arguing in bad faith and you know it.

This is very untrue and you definitely shouldn’t be giving out legal advice like this on topics you’re not knowledgeable on, but exactly which part is a crime and how criminal it is will depend on your local laws. Some such computer misuse laws are intentionally written very broadly with generic wording precisely so that edge cases such as unintentionally granting an unauthorised party access to a system does not clear them of wrongdoing when they do so.

As for how to tell which laws are relevant and whether you’ve breached them? Well, I’m sure the answer will shock you.

Accessing a system you’re not authorised to access, regardless of how that access was obtained, is generally not legal. The way to sort that out is, you guessed it, a trial.

That argument doesn’t work, all you’re doing is pointing out the issues with vigilantism. He’s also committing a crime, are the scammers now in the right too since they’re targeting a suspected criminal?

This is why trials exist.

I suggest you read the next few words in that sentence which you conveniently left out of your quote, might help clear up any confusion.

I’ll definitely be downvoted for this too but I completely agree. There’s a fine line between entertainment at scammers’ expense and vigilantism for views. Publicly spreading the faces of people you’re accusing of a crime without any sort of trial is definitely the latter and has little direct impact on shutting down these operations. This video screams ego trip.

I used to watch Kitboga and they were much more ethical (at least when I watched). They’d lean heavily into the entertainment side, waste a lot of the scammers’ time which they then couldn’t spend on actual victims, and report/shutdown accounts as they came up which actually does directly impact their operation. Your scam call center still works if one of your workers gets their face posted online, it doesn’t if you have no bank account.

I’m on Mint with a nvidia card, I haven’t really had to do any tweaks since I stopped trying to install games on an NTFS-formatted drive and nearly every game works perfectly out of the box. There’s a lot of very loud voices complaining about nvidia/tinkering but it’s definitely not universal; you won’t necessarily need to put in a lot of effort to get games to work on Linux.

This is such a weird take. People aren’t against guns because they don’t understand them, it’s because guns are literally weapons. Pretty much everyone understands perfectly well what a gun is and what it does. What you’re describing isn’t understanding, it’s desensitisation to people literally carrying weapons around. “Gun safety” is a poor argument when objectively the safest thing is to just not be around guns.

That’s an understatement, PayPal will pretty much always side with the buyer no matter how ridiculous and outlandish their claim. I even had one “dispute” where the scammer changed the dispute reason which caused PayPal to ignore what I’d already submitted and close it in their favour by default as “no response”. PayPal is very much pro-scammer, avoid if possible.

It’s been a few years since I’ve had to deal with clients directly, I don’t think I’ll ever miss it.

Because that would be the same quality. This is the internet, if an image is still recognisable after being shared five times you’re doing something wrong.

Bit of a misleading title, I’ve not watched the video but based on the video description and article they cite (also written by them, I think?) it should read “95% of Deaths from Extremism [in the past decade] in the U.S. are [Committed by] Far-Right”. The title as it is now suggests 95% of people killed were far-right, not that 95% of people killed were killed by far right.

Personally I’d swap “are” for “were” too. Present tense is a bit of an odd choice since it’s data from the past, for obvious reasons.

I feel like someone not releasing anything but squatting IP rights for 13 years is a poor argument for longer copyright terms.

According to this list it was used figuratively by Jane Austen, who I believe died more than 200 years ago. That page also claims the earliest known use is 1769, so it’s probably less than 300 years in writing? It’s moot either way, if you’re going for an etymological argument you could go further and say literally should mean anything to do with letters or writing, from the original Latin literalis/litteralis “of or belonging to letters or writing”.

Hard disagree; it’s not a useful comment precisely because it’s prescriptivism. It’s suggesting people are incorrect because they’re using a commonly accepted meaning of a word, that’s just not how language works.

Edit: Perhaps I should be clearer. The “less vs fewer” rule was invented roughly 200 years ago and doesn’t actually hold true, “less” has been used this way for far longer. It’s the epitome of “I want English to work this way, fuck everyone else”.

Language is defined by how it’s used, if it’s common for people to say “less” then that is correct. Trying to define the only “correct” usage counter to how people actually use the language is prescriptivism, which rarely changes how people actually speak. The only real use of prescriptivism is elitism.

You clearly understood what was said, you just wanted to announce you’re “better” at English.

It’s well outside my field so I’m definitely not qualified to answer that, but the trials seem to be building on this study so that might give more insight.

This probably isn’t going to be available to you then, though it is possible it paves the way for a tooth-replacement treatment. This article seems like bad science communication. The video, tweet, and website they link to all state that they’re researching congenital conditions, the inquiry form linked to on the website explicitly states in English they’re not considering people who lost their teeth later in life and specifically calls out articles like this one as misinformation.

We are currently receiving a large number of inquiries that differ from the purpose of this research, which is very troubling.
This research is a study of therapeutic drugs for people who are missing teeth due to congenital (from birth) diseases (diseases, etc.).
This research is not aimed at restoring teeth to people who have lost their teeth due to acquired causes, as some news and social networking sites have reported.Additionally, we are not currently recruiting candidates for　clinical trials (adult males).

This may have been true historically but I’m not sure it still holds up. I switched to Linux Mint as my regular OS a while back and the only driver issue I’ve had was that the installer didnt properly install my wifi card’s proprietary driver (which was working during live boot from usb), so I had to tether to my phone to download the driver through the driver manager. It even installed Nvidia drivers just fine.

It might still be an issue for more barebones or heavily customisable systems but I’m fairly certain nobody’s recommending people switch to Arch for their first Linux experience.

I’m not sure how sound that reasoning is, it’s difficult to use intuition to determine whether one infinite set is bigger than another. Infinity is weird.

Say for instance you have two infinite sets: a set of all positive integers (1, 2, 3…) and a set of all positive multiples of 5 (5, 10, 15…). Intuitively you might assume the first set is bigger, after all it has five times as many values, right? But that’s not actually the case, both sets are actually exactly the same size. If you take the first set and multiply every value by 5 you have the second set, no need to add or remove any values. Likewise, dividing every value in the second set gives you the first set again. There is no value in one set that can’t be directly mapped to a unique value in the other, therefore both sets must be the same size. Pick any random number and it’s 5 times as likely to be in the first set than the second, but there are not 5 times as many values in the first set.

With infinitely many universes one particular state being a few times more or less likely doesn’t necessarily matter, there can still be as many universes with you as without.