The problem is that they kept propping things up and mitigating losses from those with wealth, i.e. protecting boomers.

Recessions hurt, but they are historically a natural method of wealth redistribution. In a recession, people with stuff lose much more than the people without stuff, and then on the way back out the people without stuff now have a better chance to capture some of that wealth.

Same for war. Historically speaking.

Covid wasn’t a “bubble”.

Or if it was, it was all the over investment in entertainment and productivity tools. In which case, that popped around 2023 when everything got cancelled and RTO layoffs started.

Probably not the “biggest”, but remember Gus Johnson? Looked like a promising up-and-comer in the Internet comedy space, and then he got cancelled and effectively disappeared over night.

People. Social engineering is orders of magnitude easier than most default security configs.

That said, dumb security mistakes still happen regularly. Remember a few years ago when Missouri had a bunch of teachers’ personal data just in the HTML sent to every person visiting their site? When a journalist notified them, the govt tried to say he was hacker.

Watch the movie Hackers, it’s basically a documentary. Roller blades, hacker dive bars, extreme fashion, custom boot screens, swirly 3D effects around you when you’re typing fast. It was rad…

The mag 7 is 1/3 of the S&P500, but that doesn’t mean the loss will be limited to 1/3. A those other companies are also dependent on AI and the success of those 7.

The Mag7 are the 7 giant tech companies currently propped up by the AI bubble. These companies represent upwards of 34% of the marketcap of the S&P500. The other 493 companies are also intimately tied to the success of AI and/or the Mag7. Not just everyone’s retirement accounts, but a huge amount of the world is invested in the US S&P500 thinking they’re diversified across 500 successful companies.

So to be clear, yes, we’re absolutely poised for a worldwide economic recession. I wouldn’t be surprised if smaller nations who rely on USD are completely bankrupted, but one thing is for certain: when AI pops, the fallout will not be limited to the US.

Spontaneous

For some unknown reason, teenagers in a small town keep randomly exploding in a mess of blood and guts. The rest of the plot is a coming of age black comedy around that premise. I thought it was quite good.

They use OpenVPN for some reason. Wireguard is superior in every way. In case you set up a VPN.

But! If they outlaw man-boobs in public, we’re still one step closer to equality!

What part are you struggling with? Not enough content? I get it, but also that’s a feature. If you dislike centralized platforms more than you want to rot your brain, it takes zero effort.

Lol I definitely read the same thing twice. Assumed they were just repeating for emphasis. You’re right, my bad.

EoP, not PoE. Two different things.

And now you’re trying to deny it to us too! Come on OP!

But seriously, that’s so fucked on so many levels (going through your phone is fucked by itself). I’ll not assume your gender, but I’ll assume the people around you inventing Russell were heteronormative, and that this is yet another unique way in which women can be harassed that is hard for men to even wrap their head around. I’m sorry you had to deal with this, that is truly unacceptable behavior on their part.

A large obsidian slab standing perfectly vertically.

I don’t know the state of it these days, but there was a shim layer for android called Magisk that had a plugin that would allow you to spoof permissions to apps. So the app thinks it has access to your location and contacts, but what they actually have is a random GPS coord and an empty list.

I want this to be how permissions control works, but apple and google have no incentive to give it to us.

I was going to make a joke about them selling a contraption to just strap a screen to your face so we could reach peak brain rot, but then I remembered the Quest exists.

Yes, and RFK and the right love to exploit that, telling people to “stop trusting experts and do your own research”. If everyone he’s talking to is a scientist, great. But if everyone just falls back on their own heuristics, that’s exploitable.

I think the breakdown in communication is due to a difference in how people’s brains have been trained to accept something as “true”. Some people embrace the scientific method, while others are dogmatic.

To elaborate, I imagine you (aspire to) readily alter your personal beliefs to fit the data you’ve observed. But that is a foreign concept to some people. In order to utilize the scientific method, you need to be appropriately trained in it, and you need the intellect to apply it. But if you’re lacking in either department, you still need to be able to function day-to-day, to dress yourself, do your job, pay bills, and just stay alive. No one has time to think critically about every single challenge they’re presented, so our default behaviour is to create heuristics which can be reused multiple times without needing to think.

The difference between science enjoyers and dogma stans is that the latter group slowly learned over their lifetime that heuristics helped them function in life more than relying on their ability to reason; and now not only do they depend on the exchange of heuristics between others in their group (their “ingroup” as-it-were) in order to function, but they assume everyone operates that way (it’s all they know). The scientific method is a just a vocab term they forgot in middle school, and the idea of re-evaluating your beliefs is frowned upon, because that means you must have bad heuristics!

So back to your original question, I believe the confusion happens because you and they have different implied meanings when you each ask for a source of information: You ask because you want new evidence that might change your conclusions about a subject. But they ask because they seek to discredit your source of heuristics. In their experience, if someone told them X, but then later that person turned out to be wrong, then that’s enough reason to doubt X. That’s their heuristic for doubt, so that’s their goal, to make a map of your ingroup and try to foster doubt within it.

That is the only reason in their mind that they would ever have to know your sources, the concept of empiricism is mostly foreign to them.

All of that can be publicly audited. When we talk about “trust” we’re referring to what happens server side, which we have to assume can never be publicly audited. The importance of e2e encryption is that what ever happens server side doesn’t matter. There’s a massive gulch between trusting a binary you’re able to inspect and trusting one you can’t.

What you said is valid though, if you want/need privacy, you need to put in effort, but you also have to assume there’s someone smarter than you who will be able to outsmart your own audit. The absolute best you can hope for is that at least the binary is publicly reviewable and that they’re not smarter than every pair of eyes who reviews it. That’s basically the backbone of open source security.