Some Australian stuff in the 90s was… Interesting https://youtu.be/CkpP8ElRfYk?si=Xz3-x6tjrv-pOI4P
Quatity_Control
- 0 Posts
- 23 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 14th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
2·1 year agoHave some savings in case of emergency. A few thousand at least.
Work out a budget. What you earn, minus your bills + 10%, is the money you have for fun. The 10% helps prevent bill shock. Personally, I record the amount of the last four bills and average them then add the 10%. Seems to work.
Inherit or buy quality cookware and learn how to cook. Quality isn’t necessarily expensive. And good cooking is cheaper and healthier than anything else. At the start doing meal prep recipes to cover a week would be good.
… Discogs and Facebook groups would like a word regarding vinyl
1·1 year agoRemoved by mod
How many adolescents die from bike accidents?
But teens are not primary school and are far more than 13 and 14. Why would you ignore 15-19? It seems like your point only covers a minority of cases in which case any recommendation will have a minimal impact. Why are you so concerned about a minority of cases?
#1 killer of teens is dangerous driving most often influenced by peer pressure. Removing the peers by putting them ona bike would reduce the teen mortality rate by far more than the mortality rate of teens on bikes going over 30mph. See, stats can be used in many ways. Not always supportive of your opinion. Which is why it is important to choose a source that specifically relates to the topic. If you don’t want it pointed out that your source is irrelevant to the discussion.
Your welcome to your opinions. I’m just pointing out a study of primary school children is irrelevant to this particular thread. If you have studies on teens, I’d love to read them.
That’s primary school children. Not teens.
Indeed, by pretending to ignore what I wrote but devoting time to putting in a reply, having no basis for your mistaken assumptions and following up with insults that only relate to your own behaviour, I’m finally comfortable calling you out as unfit to be CEO of your own skid marks. Couldn’t even troll your own turds.
Yeah, choose ignorance. We’ll both be happier.
“Learn more about how to keep yourself safe by testing your instincts below and guessing whether each instance is a scam, using real-life examples.”
Distinctly not saying to research online and verify information.
As for tests outside academia, such as this one, even a bone headed dunce understands tests test the knowledge and ability you have, and not what you google online. To the point that if a test allows you to use other sources, that is always specifically stated. So that normal, reasonable people do not treat it as a normal, reasonable test, and complete it with their inherent knowledge and ability. I’m sorry you missed this valuable and important life lesson in learning. Explaining in the answers that you should have known to use outside sources is exactly as I have stated; a bad test.
“The best test phishing emails realistically emulate actual phishing emails. Intentionally adding errors only serves to train employees to catch bad phishing attacks.”
I’m glad as a CEO you don’t actually produce any content for your company. Emulating phishing emails means including the errors that are in phishing emails. Those are the ways you train people to recognise a phishing email. If you don’t include the errors then the only true verification of a genuine/phishing email is verifying with the purported sender by another communication channel. Not at all an effective policy, I’m sure you would agree.
No one’s butt hurt here. Treating a genuine email with caution and wariness is inherent good phishing awareness behaviour. If you can pull your vacuous head out of your voluminous arse for a moment, you will realise that once again, this is a bad test, a bad quiz, not an effective teaching tool, and just plain old click bait. Disparaging it is an appropriate response, and a fucktard such as yourself, with your vaunted claims of related professional acumen, trying to defend it is reprehensible.
You’re just pointing out that you are overqualified for this test.
At its root, it is a TEST. Not many TESTs allow you to Google for answers and supporting information. Unless specified any TEST provides in the question the information to determine the answer. By not providing all the information and not informing you to utilise any source available to obtain extra ESSENTIAL infirmation, it’s a bad test. Intended to trick you.
You and I both know if we create a test phishing email with no mistakes, it’s not a failure if people click on it. It’s a failure on our part for creating a BAD TEST. Same concept.
In the phishing Awareness course I wrote and sell, I do advocate to confirm that domains, phone numbers and other contact details, logos, are correct with the official website.
I don’t advocate that when they receive a bill for something they know they didn’t buy, they should go to Google.
And with googles current state, I could easily buy a domain and buy ads to put it at the top of search results. Googling the answer isn’t actually the answer. Verifying against known legit sources is.
It’s a shit test, which more than half of the people in this thread got right, yourself excepted.
I mean, they are two different aspects of security. Pen testers are important, but they can’t help you if an employee clicks on the wrong link.
While yes, that’s an accurate quip, it actually does highlight a deeper issue in the industry. If everyone passes your scam test, they don’t need to buy your scam test.
Additionally, scam emails aren’t 50/50 yes/no pass/fail. It’s more a combination of red flags to gauge how risky the email is to click on links, reply to, download attachments from, etcetera.
Currently the scam testing industry has no way to rate an individuals ability other than how many scam emails they did or didn’t click on. That is a false metric. It incites scam testers to trick people to justify their value to the customer.
Yep. It relies on information not present in the example. It’s intended for most people to get wrong.
Similarly the Facebook one genuinely looks like a scam unless you know of the Facebook case.
If it can’t see numbers, then it isn’t as smart as your $5 calculator or the majority of the human race. If you can convince it it’s wrong, it’s even more distinctly less intelligent.
It barely passes as a language model and only passes as a conversational model. Having citations doesn’t mean it understands citations. Having incorrect citations quite simply proves that it doesn’t understand what a citation is meant for. It does not understand the concept.
ChatGPT is pre trained on a number of directories. All of them sampled pre 2021. Nothing after that date exists for chatGPT. That isn’t intelligence. It doesn’t possess the intelligence to understand the nature of its databases. And if you really don’t think the databases it was trained on came from the internet, please show us a source.
It’s continually entertaining how you continue to point out the substantial limitations of a language model AI and yet insist it’s showing more intelligence than an average brain that’s has none of those limitations and achieves more accurate and better results any minute of every day. And then claiming it understands concepts when that concept itself is not part of its architecture is really astounding. I can almost identify the exact neuron that’s misfiring in your brain.
A lot of third party integrations to improve accessibility for visually or physically impaired users were caught up in the restrictions designed to destroy RIF Apollo etc. Spez vaguely said reddit would fix that, but it basically just resulted in improvements to base reddit for those users thrown into the bottom of a low priority dev list never to see the light of day.