I also agree that there is something that superficially seems to be supernatural. However, I believe that the reason things appear to be supernatural is because all supernatural-looking events (i.e. all correct predictions about a room) are being presented as supernatural despite random guesses accounting for a lot of these. Whether or not these events are actually supernatural may be checked by the experiment I proposed in another reply. Please do tell me your thoughts on that experiment.

Claims of the supernatural are a subset of correct claims. We can't comment on the supernatural aspect if all we know is that a claim is correct. This is affirming the consequent.

This can be verified by asking people who have had near-death experiences whether or not they experienced something correct in their near-death experiences. Obviously, such experiences are traumatic, and multiple studies show that people can hallucinate due to the release of various neurotransmitters associated with the same.

We want to calculate the probability that someone manifested as a ghost given that they had an interesting near-death experience. We assume that anyone having a true supernatural experience experiences visions that are absolutely true. For each person, there are two possibilities (we'll calculate the probability of each later).

The first possibility is that a person, in fact, experienced hallucinations. The second possibility is that a person experienced a ghostly manifestation.

Now, we further give people an objective multiple-choice quiz about the positions of various objects in an environment. To generate this quiz, we ask each person to choose the environment they believe themselves to have manifested in. We verify that they have never been to this environment before and did not have any method of knowing about this environment (e.g., if a subject saw a person going into a room and later gave an exact description of the person in the given room, it will be disregarded). We only test people who believe that they experienced a supernatural event. All options are framed in an equivalent manner and are presented in a randomized order to remove cognitive biases and implement double-blind protocols. We further use questions with non-obvious answers such that they differ from previous implementations (e.g., a vision of a surgery table with an overhead light is obvious, and by itself, not indicative of supernatural phenomena).

If the subject hallucinated, we assume that they have a random chance of predicting the positions of various objects. We now repeat this quiz a large number of times in accordance with the law of large numbers. If, after many repetitions, we find a sufficient deviation from the expected result (e.g., if each question had one correct answer and three incorrect answers, with the observed rate of correct answers being 50% instead of 25%), then we would have evidence supporting the existence of ghosts.

If, however, the results show no sufficient deviation from the expected results, then we would find that the probability of a perceived encounter being supernatural is approximately zero.

In this way, we can use scientific methods to test claims of ghost-like phenomena.

NOTE: If we only focus on the 25% of the cases as mentioned in the above example, we find that we are not focusing on the remaining 75% of the cases. Presenting only 25% of the cases, without giving any thought to the remaining 75% of the cases is an incorrect method of analysis as explained above.

I assume good faith unless clear evidence indicates otherwise. I try to adopt a more general version of WP:AGF in life.

If you mean an anonymous account from an email service trusted by other online service providers, it's not possible to get one for free. Even among paid email providers, very few accept anonymous payment methods such as cash or XMR.

There is no central location to donate to open source software in general. Most open source projects include donation details on their website or in their code repositories.

%20 is the URL-encoded form of a space; %25 is the URL-encoded form of the percent sign. The URL you are posting gets re-encoded and % becomes %25 (in the same way that a space becomes %20)

Could the app be using cell tower data to bypass mock location settings? The Github repository says it identifies a user's location using cell tower data.

Not all hierarchies are bad. For instance, in a judicial system, there need to be different tiers of courts as otherwise, if courts had universal authority and made conflicting decisions, it would complicate the law more so than it is already.

Similarly, in a large society that needs unity, if people make all decisions, the results would be catastrophic as most people don't have the time or energy to focus on every mundane decision. In such a case, elected representatives becomes mandatory, creating a hierarchy.

Yet another example is cases where fast decision-making is required (e.g., to respond to an emergency). In such a case, there needs to be a central authority who holds others responsible and coordinates response.

Ultimately, if you consider a hierarchy where accountability is possible i.e. one party may have more power over the second than the second over first but the second still has some power over the first, then it makes accountability possible in hierarchies. Hierarchies are only wrong when the power gap increases, a small power gap is alright provided it doesn't widen with time.

You could make the argument that a chain of accountability is better (X->Y->Z->X), but even such chains may include hierarchies (i.e. X itself is a hierarchy). Similarly, authority diffused among different people also suffers from potential shifting of blame. Truly neutral relations between different parties are impossible and ultimately, a power difference exists between any two parties, though it may be minute, and this power gap must be acknowledged.

In conclusion, there are a lot of disadvantages of hierarchies but there are some domains where hierarchies are good. There is no system of distribution of power that is without flaws.

TL;DR: not possible with random cookies, too much work for too little gain with already-verified cookies

There is no such add-on because random cookies will not work. Whenever someone has been authenticated, Google decides the cookie the browser should send out with any subsequent requests. Google can either choose to assign and store a session id on the browser and store data on servers or choose to store the client browser fingerprint and other data in a single cookie and sign this data.

Additionally, even with a verified session, if you change your browser fingerprint, it may trigger a CAPTCHA, despite using a verified cookie. In the case of a session token, this will occur because of the server storing the fingerprint associated with the previous request. On the other hand, if using a stateless method, the fingerprint will not match the signed data stored inside the cookie.

However, this could work with authenticated cookies wherein users contribute their cookies to a database and the database further distributes these cookies based on Proof of Work. This approach, too, has numerous flaws. For instance, this would require trusting the database, this is a very over engineered solution, Google doesn't mind asking verified users to verify again making this pointless, it would be more efficient to simply hire a team of people or use automated systems to solve CAPTCHAS, this approach also leaks a lot of data depending on your threat model, etc.

ASCII was interpreted as UTF because the function that checked whether the given text was Unicode checked the difference between bytes at even and odd positions. Many of the common phrases used to trigger this were in the 4-3-3-5 format (by letters), e.g., Bush hid the facts However, there was never any reason that this format of character placement was necessary for the bug (though even length was necessary)

Orca works great on Debian 13 for me (I installed it as a Flatpak)