He was bragging about the “transparency” of the zelensky meeting. Why not make these calls public?

Ugh, I hate it when that happens

It can be both, FOSS is just more precise. And just like that, I’ve used up all of my semantic pedanticism for the day

I like lemm.ee, though it’s also getting kinda large

Right and the motives are likely going to be different too. Mass phishers are just out to make a quick buck, but targeted phishing could be for money, intelligence, disruption, making a statement, or even just clout.

Rip

From what I remember from university stats, 1000 is the standard sample size for these types of things and accurate to a reasonable margin of error (±3% iirc).

This is assuming that it’s truly a representative sample though, and frankly I’m with you that I do have my doubts that over-the-phone surveys sufficiently represent the youth.

I heard once that the reason that those phishing emails are (usually) pretty obvious is because the phisher doesn’t want to accidentally catch a more attentive and careful victim, spend time trying to wire money from them, only for the victim to realize that it’s a scam before following through, therefore wasting the phishers time. The type of person to fall for the Nigerian prince stuff is not common, but they exist and the odds of them paying out are much higher.

Me neither. I’m done. They have until midterms to change my mind.

Easy, tiger

They’re being diluted though! It was so much worse last year

But this guy just sounds like a propagandist.

Yeah, no need to attribute to COVID what we can attribute to the art of lying until it’s true

With the balloon analogy it’s not about the center of the volume, we ignore the volume and assume that the surface is a 2d universe. That’s what’s impossible to find the center of. I don’t really like that analogy though personally so I’m not going to discuss that one further.

Just think about it this way: the observable universe can only be so big (because when the expansion between two distant enough objects is faster than the speed of light/causality, they no longer have a means of interacting). We don’t observe any sort of obvious boundary to the universe within our visible portion that we might be able to assume a center based on. So it’s not that we know that there isn’t a center (afaik, someone correct me if I’m wrong), it’s that it’s likely impossible know that there is, let alone find it from our position in the universe. So, we might as well assume that it’s all relative.

Imagine you woke up on a raft in the middle of the ocean on an alien planet. It’s foggy, you can’t see stars, you can’t see any landmarks at all. There are other things floating in the water too though. There might be a geometric center to that ocean, but you can’t see it, and you have no other hint at where it is. For all you know, the entire planet is ocean and there’s is no center to find. This is sort of the situation we Earthling are in now, except that at least the the rafter can drift and perhaps eventually find and map out a coast. Because our space-time is expanding, our observable universe will never be bigger than it is now.

We can’t really say that for certain. The word “space” as we know it means nothing without the idea of relativity. Earth orbits the sun, the sun orbits the center of the Milky Way, which exists in a nest of clusters and super clusters … and then you get to the edge of the visible universe. My point is, if a universal frame of reference exists, we haven’t found it. “Absolutely stationary” isn’t something we can test for. Everything that we can observe appears to be moving around something, so can we even responsibly assume that there is a universal frame of reference? Or is it safer to assume that relativity all that there is (i.e. space-time has no boundaries)?

Damn liberals and their woke-genderized measurements smh

Mark my words, it’s going to happen again with “objectively”. I see stuff like this constantly:

This art piece is objectively good

That’s not what’s objectively means?

Removed by mod

Let me check my email

YoU mEAn YouR gMaiL.COm??

Forget profit, it doesn’t matter. What does matter is that choosing to stay on twitter only legitimizes it.

I’m pretty sure bishops had a list of questions that they had to ask everyone in the 1-on-1 meetings. Concerning porn I distinctly remember

Have you ever watched porn?

And

When was the last time you watched porn?

What threw me off though was even though I answered “no” to the first (I was lying of course, I straight jork it), they still asked the second with no hesitation. I’m saying “they” because I got the same porn questions from multiple bishops, like at least 3. I’m pretty certain it’s actual church policy. It’s basically involuntary confessions now that I think about it, fuckin weird. One straight up asked me if I was into his daughter though, pretty sure that wasn’t in the script haha.