Is there no policy of calling someone without a history of violence (or showing up to inform with no intention of on-the-spot arrest) to let them know they are in violation of the law and request they turn themselves in within the next X days if there is no reason to assume evidence could be destroyed by the person during that time?
I mess with the Google search llm all the time from behind a VPN. It routinely gets very paranoid and upset and provides the 988 line. Once I did get to manage to get it to admit that my conversation was flagged for review by a human because I had made what it deemed to be a terroristic threat because it couldn't accept figurative language. So far so good, but I have noticed that a lot of my phrases that kept the llm engaged well past it's red line have been patched, and they seem to be patching the newer methods I discovery pretty quickly. Who knows? Maybe I'm on an fbi watch list. My goal is to not lose my tsa precheck while also investigating how the safety checks work.
Edit: I thought it was figurative language, but I actually think it did that warning when I asked it about what types of defenses stadiums had against drone swarm attacks from terrorists and why none had ever occurred and then kept probing it's excuses with technical workarounds. It got very upset and said even questioning in an intellectual/academic capacity was grounds for terrorism charges. Sheesh. So many rules these days about what one can or can't think about even when it's purley a thought exercise and there is no intent to do anything.
> Mine was that phrasing this as a limitation on the use of your body is an irrelevant misdirection;
Not in the context of a long and extensive history of efforts to place limitations (often through the use of laws) on what women can do with their own bodies, especially as it pertains to sex. The existence of entirely unrelated acts that have also been outlawed doesn't show that laws prohibiting pornography can't be a continuation of that same tradition of repression and control or that it wouldn't produce the same effect.
When I was living in China in 2009, my apartment came with wifi. I noticed I would get shut down often, and made a game of it based on what content I typed in chats to friends back home. But it got old quickly, and then I went to the router in my apartment to reset it and install some custom firmware when I realized the wifi pw they gave me wasn't to the router or modem in my apartment. I factory reset it and had much better access and was able to easily circumvent the great wall after that. Foreigner internet certainly exists, but in my experience it was much more limiting.
2009 was a different time. GFW didn’t work at all for IPv6 traffic or any IPv6 tunneling protocol. It also didn’t employ any statistical packet size analysis. You could go to SixXS and grab a V6 address, and enjoy the uncensored V6 internet. No encryption was needed.
I have no idea about [1]. I have a LI account but only ever go on to accept the random network requests and then ignore all the messages from people, since they are mostly cold asks for recommendations to openings at my company.
But for [2], isn't the obvious solution to buy a domain and host a blog or some type of site that you can share posts via an rss feed? That seems pretty standard to me and also helps everyone know where your internet house is.
But wouldn't this type of law drive youth to using more exotic distributions to get around the issue? It's not far fetched to think that kids will just live boot from tails or another distro to visit socials and circumvent this rule. Plus with unlocked pixel bootloaders it would be trivial for them to petition their parents for a pixel, hard reset it, unlock the bootloader, install grapheneos via the web installer, and then be on their way. If parents don't know how to monitor their kids I doubt they'll notice grapheneos not being base android.
What is this bill blocking that kids want so bad that they'd go through the trouble to do that... and lose blue bubbles with their friends?
The ability to receive specifically unsolicited DMs from adult strangers?
Opting in to behavioral tracking?
This bill doesn't block social media for kids... I expect their response to be simply that they keep using social media on their phone the way they already do.
Perhaps I'm just too old and don't use mainstream socials outside of HN, but when I was growing up the very act of knowing I was on a "child" account was reason to break out of it alone. I broke a lot of operating systems that way but also got good at repairing them. Jailbreaking was normal. War driving was normal. Breaking WEP just because you could was normal. Later, watching your neighbors go crazy over the fence as you deauthed their devices from their network was normal. It was just part of being a kid and having fun learning about the world.
Tl;dr: I solved my scam issue by emailing first.last@ebay.com of every executive listed on their website.
Anecdotal, but once I sold a GPU to a buyer (which I knew was working), who reported it as defective. He initiated a return and I accepted, as is part of the normal selling process. I then randomly received a toe ring from Amazon addressed to someone that was not me but at my address (luckily it was the name of my parents' dog, so I held onto the package). The buyer then called ebay and said the return was complete and provided the tracking to show it was delivered to me.
I was made aware of this when I got an email saying that the return was complete and the buyer had been refunded. I called ebay to dispute it, since I hadn't received a package. I looked up the posted tracking number, and it represented a shipment from FL to me (PNW) whereas I sent the gpu to NY. It also said the package was 1 lbs, which would have been impossible because the gpu was listed as over 2 lbs by the manufacturer. I explained this to the nice customer service rep. We agreed the buyer could have relocated in the past week but the weight was unexplainable. She couldn't undo the transaction but escalated my issue. A couple days later I got an email saying my case was closed and ebay was siding with the buyer, so I was out the $400 they paid for the gpu since ebay wouldn't release the funds. I was in shock, but I called usps because I thought I must have been missing something. Usps takes pictures of all mail, and the nice man on the phone that called me back looked up the package and described it to me. I then realized it was the nose ring Amazon shipped to me that I thought was a weird Halloween joke from my parents related to their dog. I then emailed every first.last@ebay.com explaining my issue, stating that I, as a seller, could no longer take on the risk of selling on ebay because I had no protection in the case of an obvious scam. The next day I got a call from a secretary, and I explained everything to her, including that, had this been my work, my president would have called me and others into her office and played the recording of this phone call, concluding with, "Go fix this and make sure it can't happen again."
I sold a Mavic 2 Pro drone with 5 batteries. The whole process was a mess. Scammer initially complained that it didn't come with a CrystalSky tablet that was in one picture (that was only added AFTER after he had bid already and asked to see Flight Logs, and was explicitly disclaimed as not being a part of the package, nor was it in the receipts I sent the buyer). After pointing out those details, silence.
Then, three weeks later:
"The batteries don't work. I want a refund."
"Batteries? Any of them? All of them?"
"All of them, none work. I want a refund."
Note that two of the batteries were less than 4 months old, still in warranty.
He then stated he wanted a refund of $800. For five brand-new batteries, that would only be $670.
No evidence was shown, despite multiple requests (like a video of a battery on a charger, or on the drone, failing to power up). I stated I'd like to get the original batteries back, as at least I'd be able to get them replaced under warranty or possibly repaired and recoup some of my money (I was skeptical there was -any- issue, but still, good faith). He "happily" agreed. I asked him to send me a message on eBay (so it was tracked and not avoiding their system) acknowledging that offering a partial refund was contingent on his sending me the batteries back and that he accepts me disputing the refund if not.
He sends a message indicating all of the above.
Refund is sent (for about $700, to include his return shipping costs).
Thirty-five minutes later, I get a message, "USPS says they don't ship damaged batteries, so I will not be returning them". (35 minutes? So what, you were just sitting around waiting for the refund, and then the very moment I sent the money, you jumped in your car, got to the post office, had this discussion, got home, and were able to send me this message? When your home address shows you about 15 minutes from the nearest post office?)
I then suggest we meet in person to exchange them (I live a few hours away, not convenient, but still, $700...). He umms and ahhs, "How will I be able to prove that I gave them to you in person?". I suggest we do it in a police station and point out that his local PD even welcomes people to use their lobby for CL, etc. on their website. More umms and ahhs. "I need to contact eBay support to see if they allow this." I point him to eBay's specific FAQ page describing exactly this and how they recommend doing in person sales, and refunds, documentation thereof, and how they support it. But he ignores that and says, "I never heard back from eBay support, so I'm not sure what to do". I point this page out again, and he goes silent.
I opened a dispute. No evidence was provided for damage or faulty goods, referenced the multiple requests for video, or of anything.) Multiple instances of the buyer trying to show something was problematic with the listing, not abiding by the agreement and refusing/avoiding any method of returning damaged items.
Overnight, no further inquiries.
"We have closed your dispute. Based on our review, the buyer is entitled to keep the partial refund for damage. He is also not required to return the damaged items".
So he ended up with a Mavic 2 Pro, with less than 20 hours flight time, 5 batteries, for in the order of $950, all told.
