That’s fine. There will always be some niche / industrial software that someone needs Windows for.

Yeah.

There’s waaay worse things you can catch.

Yeah.

I mean I didn’t buy $15 in bitcoin 15 years ago (have never bought any, never will), and I’m not obsessed about it.

Is it really any different for this guy?

I dislike it.

Pretty sure my instance blocks it.

I believe it’s counter productive and stifles engagement.

I don’t necessarily dislike “AI” but I reserve the right to be derisive about inappropriate use, which seems to be pretty much every use.

Using AI to find pertoglyphs in Peru was cool. Reviewing medical scans is pretty great. Everything else is shit.

If it doesn’t work then quick cheap and easy I’d pointless.

I’ll make you dinner every night for free but one night a week it will make you ill. Maybe a little maybe a lot.

You don’t really need to “trust” the admins if you think of your account like a throwaway.

That’s only true in a general sense. Regardless a key component of “doing science” is to reproduce the results of others.

You raise a good point.

I’m much the same in that I just refuse to watch anything with ads. They really are dystopian and weird.

I also get that same feeling when I see someone just grinding through youtube ads, but people that do that just don’t seem to have any awareness of the interaction - it’s just part of the show.

The weirdest of all is when people (usually brave browser enthusiasts?) try to claim that “some” ads are actually a good thing because it makes them aware of some product they actually desire which they wouldn’t have been aware of otherwise. I’ll take blissful ignorance thanks.

So yes, I can imagine people doing this stuff without really thinking about it.

Yeah this is me. It’s been just perfect for many years now.

There’s just no way I’m ever going to do this.

Honestly, I’d rather go forage for twigs and berries than interact with ads.

Naming things is complicated.

It’s not really a case where some organisation has the authority to name something. Rather people just call something a name, and organisations adopt that name.

That’s not how science & research works.

We test the things we think we know and publish our findings.

Settle down mate.

I didn’t say defaced websites are going to take down the government.

My implication was that it would be more effective than ranting on social media.

Yeah. I’ve only spent a few moments skimming through the linked article but if you were part of a legitimate hacktivism group planning a significant operation why would you publish this statement ?

It’s really just spooky hyperbole - as though written by an adolescent that want’s to sound scary and powerful.

I would absolutely love to see hacktivists cause some chaos, and maybe even some real financial harm.

I’m not going to write off hacktivism so quickly.

Even if it’s just a few defaced websites now and then, that’s a whole lot more effective than any other sort of activism I’ve seen to date.

No.

That’s just a silly metaphor.

Suggesting that dems would win more votes by being further left is contrary to established political science.

Sure ok but in a democracy the presumption is that law makers have the support of the public.

In this specific case most (maybe all?) Australian state’s and territories have already enacted similar laws, the federal law just reinforces them. That doesn’t really seem tyrannical?

It’s not really an assumption. Clearly, education and awareness has been insufficient.