So to me, saying “we don’t know if it was sexting,
They may have not known the source and tweet wording. I certainly didn’t.
/edit: I see it’s in the article as well.
So to me, saying “we don’t know if it was sexting,
They may have not known the source and tweet wording. I certainly didn’t.
/edit: I see it’s in the article as well.
I think we’re off a lot better. We have a lot more choice, and much less bad choices.
Will it move the mouse for me?
I think it’s very possible.
With the right causation or correlation, the correct person is identified.
Whether right reason refers to being mad at the person for the related reason or the reason itself being valid and rightful, both are possible.
Right time is related to the cause of anger as well as when the anger takes place. Both is possible to be at the right time.
You can even be angry without any visible indication. There’s also cases where an aggressive response is the right response. Proper response is possible too.
Seems fairly obvious and to be expected that they would do that, given their intelligence and environment and utility use.
Still, important and significant to observe and prove in the wild. Especially as not one-off random anecdotal observations.
I think you can learn it when you’re younger than 20 years old
I mean, there’s emojis like bee snuggle fox available
Thank you
Deep Narrative: Experience a story rich with political intrigue and moral dilemmas.
we call it eine Politischintrigenhaftmoralischdilemmaischerfahrung
What are you referring to as obviously fake? The article about that bot account?
… any text form?
A block on Twitter doesn’t say anything unless you know why they were blocked and know the person. Blocking can be more than warranted and justified. Be it spam, toxicity, harassment, or similar things. “I saw a screenshot of someone being blocked on Twitter” is not a good foundation for an argument.
They talk about malware in npm packages. One example isn’t enough to make a general claim that all software with political opinions or voices becomes malware.
When a platform follows sanctions, and the law, I don’t think you can claim them to be political and activism decisions. If you want to make that argument and want to do so in an absolutist fashion (not assess and reduce risks but evade them entirely), then you can only self-host and I guess on your own servers? No platforms, no services?
Nowadays, there are many teams who buy popular apps and browser extensions to inject malware.
… which has nothing to do with political views and especially not political views of the original authors and sellers.
As you can see, the “opinion” or “political view” of a company is not only a way to hype on sanctions and curry favor with investors, the government, and consumers, but it is also a clear signal about potential threats. It signals that your sensitive data may be hijacked, sold, or wiped anytime if the political compass spins tomorrow and recognizes you as an enemy.
No. None of what was written before showed me any of that.
Some of the red flags I actively use to reject software:
Direct political opinions in a product’s blog, like “we support X” or “we are against X”
“We are free software and we support free software” -> REJECTED! (?)
Some people don’t like gore
What are those options?
Domain and IP block lists?
Poor people whose first Name is Al
I’m a fan of my fan
Taking a shower, not too cold
Go ahead!
Less experienced is fine. Questions is how chat and discussions start.
Beehaw has too little content. Be bold and post.
In both cases after inspiring Videos, I bought good cheap:
.bik
intro video file with an “empty” one to skip intros