FiskFisk33

joined 2 years ago
[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I can't get past the fact you rhymed food with shoes.

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 1 points 3 weeks ago

yeah, only time will tell.

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 4 points 3 weeks ago

I think the word itself, italian being closeish to latin, evokes the killing of jesus.

not my greatest moment hah

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 7 points 3 weeks ago

well, for those of us who need stable employment, whole markets going downwards isn't necessarily very good either

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

looks like graph theory to me

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 3 points 3 weeks ago

It's up to the American standards, for what that's worth.

Honestly, not much.

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 30 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

in a democracy the latter has to be preceded by the former.

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 36 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

Preliminary findings from july

  • First, X designs and operates its interface for the “verified accounts” with the “Blue checkmark” in a way that does not correspond to industry practice and deceives users. Since anyone can subscribe to obtain such a “verified” status, it negatively affects users' ability to make free and informed decisions about the authenticity of the accounts and the content they interact with. There is evidence of motivated malicious actors abusing the “verified account” to deceive users.
  • Second, X does not comply with the required transparency on advertising, as it does not provide a searchable and reliable advertisement repository, but instead put in place design features and access barriers that make the repository unfit for its transparency purpose towards users. In particular, the design does not allow for the required supervision and research into emerging risks brought about by the distribution of advertising online.
  • Third, X fails to provide access to its public data to researchers in line with the conditions set out in the DSA. In particular, X prohibits eligible researchers from independently accessing its public data, such as by scraping, as stated in its terms of service. In addition, X's process to grant eligible researchers access to its application programming interface (API) appears to dissuade researchers from carrying out their research projects or leave them with no other choice than to pay disproportionally high fees.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_3761

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 13 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I went to rome once, and I found people to be super unfriendly. Like, giving me looks levels of unfriendly.

After a few hours of this I realized the problem, I was wearing a Deicide t-shirt, and rome is christian as fuck. God I'm stupid.

After a quick change people were really nice :D

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 4 points 3 weeks ago

that or insurance companies

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 1 points 3 weeks ago

peer networks are not illegal if the peers are consenting members.

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Totally doable if this was a distributed service.

ok not randomly generated, but you know

view more: ‹ prev next ›