"We will change the law" means they haven't changed it yet. And this PM is so god damn popular in his own party, they are just trying to get his possible replacement in in an otherwise unnecessary byelection. This sounds decisive but isn't a fait accompli by any stretch of the imagination. The tech big guns will sound amenable to such a policy but will do fuck all.

I can count people who love so-called AI in my circle of friends on one hand. One hand that suffered a near catastrophic accident at the saw mill.

The "town square" is former Xwitter marketing to give it relevance, which you could say it had until the son of South African emerald miners got involved. It was due to especially media types being fond of that platform. News broke there, hashtags trended, movements started. That's gone now.

Lemmy isn't that. It's a fediverse place to find mostly niche content for people who got fed up with reddit.

I've only been on Lemmy for a few days but ...

You're on the fediverse. You are your own algorithm. What you see is what you chose to follow or what's on the instance you signed up to. Either way, you ended up there by choice. If this is a thing you notice after only a few days, you are not qualified to predict the doom and gloom of Lemmy. Work on your feed first.

You'll find biased communities on here. You'll find reasonable ones. But you need to go look for them. It's just as echo-chambery here like anywhere else on the internet.

Even for a non-bank website, I imagine there is an octogenarian federal judge somewhere in the States who is still puzzled by fax machines who made a ruling holding website owners liable if they didn't do this when they know of any vulnerability that could affect the user. So there is a possible legal angle as well.

The people who use browsers other than the ones listed will either never see this message or know how to upgrade on their own.

I think this is not a clean cut case of evil planned obsolescence. There are valid security concerns, as browsers are a common attack vector. You should get that updated, also to protect your privacy while surfing online. So for a banking site or similar, I kind of get it. (I recognize there is a possible conundrum when people can't go bank in person because the bank no longer has branches and/or get excluded by their old hardware/economic reasons from doing it online. Should they be able to choose risking it if the bank knows about a flaw they then leave exposed? Shit's complicated.)

That being said I'm sure this banner of corporate concern was not primarily motivated by the security and privacy of their users.

A protocol is a set of rules that a group of people have agreed on to make it easier to talk to each other. I shut up when you talk and listen to what you say. I speak again when you have finished and then it's your turn to listen. That's a simple example of a protocol.

IP is more rules than that but it allows computers to talk to each other without having to exchange contract information first, like people do with phone numbers.

Let that sink in before you tackle Activity Pub.

Because they'd be much bigger and much, much more expensive. And because they don't run as stably as conventional ones. Yet.

You are trying to analyze an absurd statement with logic. The premise is faulty, which jives with this LLM generated and formatted nature of this post. The computer is struggling to grasp the human element.

Your actual ability to throw a person is irrelevant. If you excelled at the gym you could probably get to a point where your people throwing abilities become good, if a tad disturbing. That's only one sliding scale of the adage. The other is your amount of trust, which is subjective and never defined. So even if you could throw a consenting average adult an impressive 24 feet forward, that doesn't automatically imply you trust them a great deal because that scale isn't fixed. And indeed most people don't posses the ability to throw people at those distances, which is why it serves as the metaphorical comparative scale in the phrase. Whether the statement is used in the affirmative or negative is also irrelevant. The message transported is the same.

Q2+3 only make sense under the faulty premise that this statement can be used and analyzed logically. Since that's wrong, the questions are irrelevant.

You would have to be sociopathic or psychopathic to actually throw a baby. Most people are neither in sufficient amounts, which makes your paragraph on baby throwing techniques only disturbing. Whether you are a human or an LLM masquerading as one.

feelings which other tech bros don't seem to evoke

Evidence to the contrary: Melon Usk. Different type of nutcase but unsettling in his own way.

MZ stole the idea that made him rich. He behaved like an asshole when he got rich. He runs a big company that is unencumbered by such moral quandaries as whether or not to prevent genocide. A company that experimented with manipulating teenage girls. A company that is aware of the addictive qualities of their products.

If he speaks in public he comes across to me as part robot, part calculating oppositionist, and part utterly uncomfortable.

I think the public had a similar impression of another tech bro, Bill Gates. Until his wife divorced him, he was looked at as a nerd with the voice is Kermit the frog. And now he finds out that no charity donations can wash away the Epstein files oil slick.

Any post formatted like this one looks like it was spat out by a model...

Just don't block the ads or pay for premium. That makes YT so thoroughly unenjoyable you'll be on TikTok in no time.

Wait until the younglings are gone and then try to offer food on the reg. You need to be present. And be prepared for stubborn refusal.

They are smart birds to a point. If you leave some sticks out and then later they incorporate them into their nest, they won't think oh this kind human did this for me. They needed sticks and took them. If you stay out of their feathers they're not thinking oh this human is so respectful of my boundaries. They're thinking this terrain is mine! So you're operating on the assumption that you have some sort of getting along with the creatures credit that only exists in your mind. As far as the birds are concerned you were at best a dormant threat they could live with until something made you an active one and you got attacked. And now that's all you are. And it'll take time and effort to change that.