I like to code, garden and tinker

  • 0 Posts
  • 21 Comments
Joined 8 months ago
cake
Cake day: February 9th, 2024

help-circle
  • The quotation marks did most of the lifting there, and it’s more of an anecdote of their own projections against themselves. They assume these “welfare queens” are driving around in high end cars and living luxurious lifestyles on the governments dollar, while they are the ones doing such. Sorry if there was any confusion. I agree with all the statements you have stated against Brett Farve though, they are the scum of the system they wish to project onto others.


  • Despite texts that show Favre sought to keep his receipt of the funds confidential, Favre has said he didn’t know the money came from federal funds intended for poor people. He’s paid the money back, but he’s being sued by the state of Mississippi for hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest that accrued on the money he received. Favre hasn’t been accused of any criminal wrongdoing.

    Source: (Yahoo News)

    So they could easily of have funded this themselves, but just rather steal public funds because “free money”? Sounds like a so called “welfare queen” to me.




  • From my understanding, you are pretty safe as long as you don’t provoke them (walking through the middle of them might be considered provoking) or near their calves. This article from the UK states “Where recorded, 91% of HSE reported fatalities on the public were caused by cows with calves”. Basically, mothers with a child are going to be very protective.

    Cows are a domesticated creature, so they are generally docile, but I would exercise caution because if need be they will use their mass and strength against you. I’ve heard of stories of farmers running from cows and narrowly escaping under a fence. Most of these did involve a farmer trying to separate a calve from it’s mother. I’ve also heard stories of cows jumping fences.

    And as far as memes go:







  • I also fail to see how this applies here. What is the disinformation? Where is the Russian bias? If you are seeing something I am not, please elaborate, but the summary in the article is:

    No one would blame Zelenskyy for choosing the lesser of two evils here: Western banks over Russian tanks. Yet, the grim fact remains that even if his nation succeeds in repealing the Russian invasion, the future in store for Ukraine is not necessarily one of sovereignty and self-determination but, most likely, one of Western economic tutelage.

    Of course large global asset managers are going to see money signs in their eyes. The fact is that Ukrainians are being put between a rock and a hard place, and exploitation of those kind of situations is capitalism 101.

    Also, if you are assuming this is Russian propaganda, why is it coming from a website ran by a British political activist funded by a British investor. It also seems to be “mostly factual”. I’m failing to see where the tie to Russia is.



  • From Time (link: https://time.com/6133336/jan-6-capitol-riot-arrests-sentences/)

    So far, the median prison sentence for the Jan. 6 rioters is 60 days, according to TIME’s calculation of the public records.

    An additional 113 rioters have been sentenced to periods of home detention, while most sentences have included fines, community service and probation for low-level offenses like illegally parading or demonstrating in the Capitol, which is a misdemeanor.

    Overall these people are getting less time than kids who get caught with some weed on them.

    You can think you have rights, or you can know your rights, but when you violate the law don’t be surprised when one of the most pro-incarceration states around throw you in jail. Lots of protesters get arrested and prosecuted as a scare tactic. This is if you are assuming these people didn’t have seditious intentions, which does change things a bit. Overall sounds like they fucked around and found out, at least protesters fighting for real causes are more prepared to get fucked with by the state than these jokers.


  • As for the article, I think this is generally PR and corporate speak. Whatever their reasons were, they apparently didn’t shut down the initial XMPP servers until 2022 so it was a reliable technology. There “simplification” was bringing users into their ecosystem to more easily monetize their behaviour. This goes along with your last paragraph, at the end of the day the corporation is a for-profit organization. We can’t trust a for-profit organization to have the best of intentions, some manager is aiming to meet a metric that gets them their bonus. Is this what we really want dictating the services we use day to day?


  • Google tried to add support for it in their product

    Is like saying that google tried to add support for HTTP to their products. Google Talk was initially a XMPP chat server hosted at talk.google.com, source here.

    Anyone that used Google Talk (me included) used XMPP, if they knew it or not.

    Besides this, it’s only a story of how an eager corporation adopting a protocol and selling how they support that protocol, only to abandon it because corporate interests got in the way (as they always do). It doesn’t have to be malicious to be effective in fragmenting a community, because the immense power those corporations wield to steer users in a direction they want once they abandon the product exists.

    That being said, if Google Talk wasn’t popular why did they try to axe the product based on XMPP and replace it with something proprietary (aka Hangouts)? If chat wasn’t popular among their users, this wouldn’t of been needed. This could of been for internal reasons, it could of been to fragment the user base knowing they had the most users and would force convergence, we really can’t be sure. The only thing we can be sure of is we shouldn’t trust corporations to have the best interest of their users, they only have the best interest of their shareholders in the end.