HackerTrans
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

lightfield1002

no profile record

comments

lightfield1002
·il y a 3 ans·discuss
Then how are those words supposed to come into existence?

Something needs to pay for them. I rather pay than have my privacy violated and sold to every ad company on this planet.

What could be improved is how to pay. I don't want 50+ different subscriptions.
lightfield1002
·il y a 3 ans·discuss
Not just on Windows. Modern web pages are full of cookie banners, sign-up-for-newsletter banners and please-sign-in-with-facebook banners. It's become a sport to ignore what's in popups and quickly find the right place to click to get rid of them (an OK button, a little "x" in the upper right corner, ...)

Which is a bit ironic since there was a time where browsers would routinely open popups in new windows, upon which it was immediately misused by ads, upon which browsers implemented counter measures. We're just in the next iteration of this.
lightfield1002
·il y a 3 ans·discuss
> Most non-technical people I know wouldn't have a clue what a .zip was.

Most non-technical people in the 40+ age range that I know are well aware what .zip was and still is.

Please don't consider your circle of peers in their 20s as a representative sample of society.
lightfield1002
·il y a 3 ans·discuss
The FEDs rate was close to 0% early 2022 and is now above 5%.

Yes, something very substantial has changed.
lightfield1002
·il y a 3 ans·discuss
Or you could take personal responsibility for having ignored everybody who said for years that it's all BS. This was not a secret, unforeseen, some higher natural power. It was delusion, and if you choose not to listen then it's up to you. Don't blame it on regulators.
lightfield1002
·il y a 3 ans·discuss
> if it looks too good to true, it probably is.

And everybody told you, all the time, and you chose not to listen. That's your choice, no worries.

But threatening physical harm to the con man you fell for is just not ok.
lightfield1002
·il y a 3 ans·discuss
And yet the top comment here starts with:

> I sincerely hope that I never meet Sam Bankman Fried, because if I did I do not know what I would do but it certainly wouldn't be legal.

Why is this statement not condemned? Of course it's terrible that SBF was a fraud. But insinuating that physical harm is justified is just not ok. They were the naïve ones who bought into the BS, waived away all the warning voices, and now they are threating violence? Not ok.