irotsoma

Vance is there so Trump can scapegoat him for handing Putin everything he wants, that's about it.

It's reasonably priced. I was in the same boat with the Google domains shutdown. As long as you aren't a heavy user, it has lots of cool features. But if you get their attention they've been known to fleece the crap out of small businesses that were using their free services. Most of my stuff is self hosted applications to move myself off of Google services, so my traffic is minimal.

Communism, not Fascism, or to protect workers' rights if you go back far enough. We only got involved in fighting fascism because we were drawn into the war, otherwise it's never been that big of an issue to Americans and many schools aren't even allowed to teach about it anymore because "kids shouldn't have to feel bad about something like that" or whatever excuses the far right is currently using to prevent their schools from teaching about Anne Frank, concentration camps, slavery, anything else they want to implement themselves.

Not that crazy. Back then they were a luxury item and competition could easily spring up if they lost control of the market. Now they're a necessity, competition is scarce, and they have deals with most major manufacturers to keep them in businesses even with faulty products. It's standard late-capitalism consolidation at work.

That was something the current administration cracked down on. Plus with the war, there isn't a lot of loose money floating around, but there's lots being spent on military and infrastructure, so they're making enough in legit business to not need to use corrupt means to get it. And a lot of the Russian oligarchy has left which was part of why they didn't want them.

Foreign and corporate disinformation campaigns aided by consolidation of TV and print media as well as social media monopolies. Combine that with a lack of time or energy from working long hours, long commutes, and a lack of ability to take time off, much less devote energy to sorting out disinformation that is so common.

I never said anything like that. I said a person in that phase of life should not date someone in a different phase of life just like a 10 year old should not date a 15 year old, a 20 year old should not date a 15 year old, but a 35 year old dating a 40 year old is not a big deal at all. They are still only 5 years differences, but is it not obvious that the younger of the 10/15 or 15/20 pairs would be at a huge disadvantage in the relationship and so is likely to be taken advantage of even if not intentionally? Now if sex education and relationship education was more common in our society, it might not be as big of a problem for the 20 yo/40 yo couple like it's not a big deal for a 40/60 couple, but that's not reality. And there's still the problem that it's easier to manipulate a 20 yo than a 40 yo because of physical brain development (again, not everyone but in general).

As for voting, I believe anyone who has to survive in the society on their own should vote. That includes under 18 if they are emancipated for example, IMHO.

I agree that it's the wrong way, but not because of any of this other than the first half of the first sentence.

It's the hard/wrong way because it means you are having to be responsible for securing the root cert private keys and because most people will do it wrong and set up a root cert with the ability to sign not just tls certs, and that's where the problems can occur if the keys are compromised and you've set up all of your machines to trust it.

But it's also not true that you shouldn't use HTTPS or that you should trust your own network, not because of the router, but because of the devices. People don't control their devices anymore. Many home automation devices, nanny cams, security devices, water leak detectors, etc., contain firmware that is poorly configured and can easily expose your network traffic if it's not encrypted. Not to mention a lot of apps these days on smartphones are Trojans for spyware, Temu, WeChat, etc.

And as for cost, you can get a domain name for a few dollars per year or as mentioned, a subdomain from something like a DDNS service, so it definitely can be totally free to do it the right way.

Yes. Problem is that NSFW has lost its original meaning to a lot of people. NSFW was originally to hide things that might be controversial to be visible on your screen in a workplace, so it should be fairly conservative. Beachwear would 100% not be safe to look at in a work environment.

But now a lot of places are using it to determine what is safe to look at not in front of your boss, but in front of your kids or in public. That is a much different thing. NSFW flags should not be used to restrict kids from seeing it, just your boss. There needs to be a separate flag for hiding things from kids. And because social norms are different in different societies, there should be even more granularity in the flags. Nudity is just one thing that is NSFW.

NSFW should be reserved for blocking things that I don't want to suddenly appear on my screen when I'm browsing the Internet on my break at work when I'm allowed to browse the Internet, but it wouldn't be good for a naked picture to show up on my screen suddenly.

I guess it depends on what OP meant by "immediately". If they meant the same day, maybe. If they meant within seconds or a few minutes, which is what I interpreted it as, then probably not. It takes time to transfer data out of a secure network, unless they gave the company direct access to a feed from the website, which would be really risky for a bank to give any organization a direct, real-time feed of any kind that is on the same network as financial data. I mean unless the bank also owned the spamming company, but that seems risky for reputation.

No they still need to be a part of our society and this should have the right to control it. I'm just talking about consent. People under 25 generally are more easily manipulated due to both physiological and sociological characteristics. And there's not a specific age, everyone is different of course, but as a general rule I find it unethical for someone over 40 to date someone under 25. But I wouldn't find it unethical for someone over 60 to date someone in their 30s or 40s for example.

Treating mental health issues, because they apparently don't exist.