I believe the reason it was posted is because Proton recently linked to the article again on Twitter, claiming that Proton Pass is appearing too far down in Google’s search results relative to its popularity. This is when searching for “password manager” (Google’s own password manager is the first result).
I think most people do understand this and the naysayers get too caught up on the words being used, like how you still get people frothing over the mouth over the use of the word “intelligence” years after this has entered mainstream conversation. Most people using that word don’t literally think ChatGPT is a new form of intelligent life.
Actual title and lead of the article (emphasis mine):
Debate Prep by Day, Google Defense by Night
Karen Dunn is helping Kamala Harris and defending Big Tech from a lawsuit brought by the Biden-Harris administration. The case has spotlighted a brawl between Dunn’s law firm and DOJ.
Interesting, thanks for sharing.
It wasn’t a peace march, the organisers called for attendees to carry out citizen’s arrests on anyone they believed to be attending the convention. In 7:30’s footage you can see random people who have no connection to anything happening trying to walk past and being assaulted by protestors because of how they dress. The language used by the protestors was not “we are here to protest” but instead “we are here to disrupt” so their intentions yesterday were clearly never to be peaceful. In the footage you can also see some of them deliberately and repeatedly running into the police while filming for TikTok so they can be pushed away and scream about police brutality to their viewers.
EDIT: I should make clear that I’m referring to the organisers of the event and those protestors involved in violence. From what I understand there were like 2000 - 3000 people there and clearly not all of them were causing problems.
I mean…you’re the only one engaging. Up until 3 days ago I had zero concept that this person existed.
The video has over 38 million views and 260,000+ comments in just a few days so they’re definitely not the only one engaging.
So just shut up, and he’ll go away.
That was sort of his point, apparently:
The ordeal is a timely reminder that seeing no longer means believing when it comes to the online world. Perry told NBC News:
While everybody pointed and laughed at me for overconsuming food, I was in total control the entire time. In reality, people are completely absorbed with internet personalities and obsessively watch their content. That is where a deeper level of overconsumption lies — and it’s the parallel I wanted to make.
Most of the people who have watched his content over the years have been hate watchers, there to mock his weight gain and supposed descent into insanity. It’s the “lolcow” phenomenon, basically.
Anyway, if people had actually ignored his low effort content it would have gone more like this. But they didn’t, so now it looks like he’s achieved something more masterful than he actually has.
Why don’t they use humans like the Soviets? Are they stupid?
I agree, thanks for sharing.
I think spending so much time in airports has desensitised me to most of that stuff, though it has taken the excitement out of airports and flight travel too. It’s just like being in a shopping mall or on a bus to me now. I will say the one bit I still hate are those long international flights where I can go to sleep, wake up and still be in the air. Something about that always unsettles me.
I used to be pretty fearful of flying but then I worked in an airport and saw how many people fly every single day without even a minor issue. That really normalised it for me (not that I fly often).
Just don’t fly on these small planes and you’ll be fine. It’s always the small planes…
The door came from a privately owned American RV-10 four-seater plane and the pilot and passenger landed safely after the incident.
Eurobodalla Shire Council told the ABC in a statement that the pilot told airport staff “the door latch was not secured properly”.
The way some of the titles are changed is quite funny to me. It’s like if you saw a big scary looking ghost on Halloween and then you rip the sheet off and it’s just Huey, Dewey and Louie stacked on top of each other.
I Bought Ten of the WEIRDEST Phones EVER
to
Reviewing Old Phones with Alternative Form Factors
Besides, by the time the control for instagram is in, nobody will be using it under 30.
Right, but the point isn’t just to establish a ban for Instagram. The establishment of laws such as these creates a basis on which further policy can be enacted in the future. It’s sort of like the eSafety Commissioner ordering Twitter to take down content worldwide - a big reason it did that was to test its own powers in a court of law. If a ban is successfully implemented on Instagram/Meta and survives any legal challenges, then it sets a legal precedent upon which further legislation can be enacted against whatever the next big social media platform is.
As @nednobbins@lemm.ee correctly put it, tech savviness is the property of an individual and not of a generation. There are non-savvy Zoomers, just as there are non-savvy people from your generation.
You’re making the argument that the exception proves the rule, which is a misleading way to think about it. Most people in this thread are generalising the generations because that is a more accurate way to think about common behaviours or abilities across a very large group of people.
The actual term for Alphas is “iPad kid” lol
but on average they are definitely better with tech than we are.
Are they? What are you basing this assessment on?
Your horseshoe analogy is a helpful and simple way to think about it, thanks.
Gen Z doesn’t use uppercase anyway lol
they all type like this smh
Yes. And SA is proposing a law against kids using online services.
Yet the conversion is about how the tech companies will handle it.
It’s the same thing. Social media companies are selling a product to these children which they pay for with their data and attention, just as other companies sell liquor or tobacco to customers for a direct monetary fee. In all of these examples, the government places the onus on the company to not sell the product to a minor (or someone under a certain age).
Do you think there would have been societal shifts on the sale of tobacco and alcohol without government regulation? A government cannot successfully effect widespread societal change on an issue without first clearly identifying that there is a problem through the introduction of new laws.
For sure, I’m not suggesting otherwise. Just giving some additional context as to why it may have been posted again.