cheaper = ecologically friendlier? NOPE

Why 3D print them? Isn’t that more ecologically wasteful than just getting any of the mass-produced ones? They aren’t exactly hard to come by. Fuck your wasteful printing.

skill issue, failed parenting, & cash grab

If you publish there, you are supporting right wing propaganda.

Not how taking a cut of subscription revenue works. If you publish right wing propaganda, then maybe you have a point.

Yes, and that’s exactly why the article is important.

Explaining to us how subscriptions work like we’re idiots is important? Or was that common knowledge a revelation for you?

Is it possible to link to source instead of make us read painfully blurry shit?

I can’t read URLs.

That trauma adds up for everyone

if they bitchass

Why would i want to watch someone die?

You guys wanna go see a dead body?

He blames me that mother forgot her phone’s and Google password because I recommended against it being a word.

That was kinda shit guidance. Shouldn’t be relying on memory at all except for maybe a single password to a password manager. A password can be written down & stored securely.

Moreover, passwords are shit when they could be using passkeys. Passkeys are more secure, aren’t memorized, & google accepts them. Decent password managers store them.

As for privacy & security: not your problem. They can leave their shit wide open to attack & deal with identity theft & fraud the hard, expensive way.

As I understand it, the character was reappropriated from an oh exploitable publicly funded game Pathways (play it) designed to inform students about part of a public counterterrorism program for voluntarily deradicalizing extremists without legal consequences for opting-out. The player plays a new college student, Charlie, who runs into scenarios. First scenario: on a sketchy social media website their new friends use, a video is shared, and the player is offered choices:

• download the video
• ask about the video
• tell a trusted adult

If the player chooses to download

Charlie downloaded the video and shared it with different people online.

Charlie felt relieved and happy that people were liking the video and also sharing it.

Deep down, Charlie wasn’t sure if this was the right thing to do, as some of the ideas in the video were extreme and violent.

It’s important to remember that downloading or streaming certain content can lead to a terrorist offence conviction.

Apparently, download implies more than that, the game bundles unnecessary actions together, & merely downloading/viewing content has legal risks. The other choices aren’t much better: an extremist tells Charlie people who care about their country will download & share the video or an adult explains extremism, so Charlie simply doesn’t download it. Charlie can’t just view the video to judge it: great message for self-reliance & developing the criticism to participate competently in democracy.

I’m guessing the other scenarios play out similarly. At some point, Charlie is courted by Amelia, a nationalist teenager with purple hair who Charlie can refer to the deradicalization program.

I can see why derision of this game took off & the alt-right embraced Amelia as their meme: trolling potential like that is irresistible to pass up.

Transparency & freedom of information are good. Information that is naturally open should remain open.

I’m not sure anonymous negativity is anti-egalitarian: anyone has an equal opportunity to it. While

Everyone has a right to confront their accuser with transparency.

anonymous negativity isn’t an accusation, it’s disapproval. Plus, election ballots are typically secret in a democracy.

Moreover, everyone here is anonymous unless they associate their account with a real identity.

Your example had me confused.

Should you have a right to leave an anonymous message on his car about the style of his shirt? Doing such nonsense will get you labeled a halfwit or worse. Take any real life circumstances and transpose this behavior. It is completely unethical nonsense.

In a free society, anyone has the liberty do this. They have the liberty to do “nonsense” & be “a halfwit or worse”. None of it constitutes a harm conflicting with a right. The same liberty carries online.

While transparency is more conducive to healthy democratic deliberation, there is no duty against such a note. There is no duty to suppress information, either. There’s just absence of duty altogether, ie, liberty.

A few possibilities

• learn not to overgeneralize
• don’t & become an incel just like them
• change your gender?

inaccessible image of text

Do commenters know they can copy text instead of break web accessibility?

From the article

The partnership, announced in October 2025, integrates Ring’s Community Requests feature directly into Flock’s law-enforcement platforms, FlockOS and Flock Nova, allowing police departments to request Ring camera footage through Ring’s Neighbors app.

Ring Community Requests feature

Community Requests

What is Community Requests?

Community Requests is a privacy-protected service that enables public safety agencies to put out public requests for help and efficiently and securely collect and manage digital evidence. Public safety agencies can post a request in the Neighbors feed asking community members within a specific area to share Ring video footage or information that may help their investigation. Videos customers choose to share in response to Community Requests go directly to Axon Evidence, a secure evidence management system where they can be verified for authenticity and integrity. This also creates a complete audit trail of how and when public safety agencies collect information.

Participation is always voluntary, and public safety agencies can only see what you choose to share.

The owner chooses what to share in response to a request. Just like IRL when the police knock on an owner’s door to request information.

https://hrnews1.substack.com/p/ring-cameras-join-flock-and-amazon?r=1t17zr

Did OP know the form to create/edit posts has a field named URL?

Bending Spoons laid off almost everybody at Vimeo yesterday

I totally misread that & thought what a beast.

Asking questions is fine; asking without doing prior research is fine too.

No one’s entitled to an answer & certainly not a polite one if they fail to show consideration for others by putting sensible effort themselves. That’s not called a doctorate, that’s called trying.

Contrary to your opinion, those “assholes” may be doing OP a favor by pointing out the question is deficient. Most volunteers respond to an ineptly posed question by ignoring it. This is rational: which question would you rather answer?

• A well-prepared question that hadn’t been answered before & that provides all the information relevant to answer it.
• A poorly prepared question that requires the answerer to sink in significantly more resources with painful back-and-forth to elicit missing information & point out basic resources.

Getting questions answered sooner by reducing the effort & pain to answer them is in everyone’s interest.

Learning how to learn & ask questions well are indispensable skills. If you want to keep asking questions unintelligently, though, then you can expect to wear out the patience & good will of the volunteers answering them. Just as you are free to not try, everyone else is free & entitled to go full asshole on that bullshit.

Did you practice due diligence of RTFM (reading the fucking manual) & researching the problem earnestly before asking a question that requests people to commit their time to answer it (ie, were you considerate), and did you show the effort you had put into answering the question yourself & what insights you gained before getting stuck? That’s usually it. No one appreciates their time wasted by poor effort.

I used to work with a programmer who would schedule meetings with IT subject matter experts of systems we were working on integrating. Instead of doing the research in advance & coming prepared with meaningful questions, he’d waste their time (and mine!) with questions he could have answered by reading public documentation. It was infuriating.

Nah, people are the worst & judging them is fair. Plus, the mod is overstepping: “Be excellent to each other!” means each other in the discussion, and the subject of contempt is clearly not here with us.

We don’t owe humanity reservation from our contempt just because someone did something massively stupid to themselves. And we don’t need to accept the premise that the power of “big, evil megacorp” somehow relieves an individual of the duty to exercise critical thought. They had all the time & power to make a decision & chose poorly: this failure is entirely theirs & we have every reason to scorn them for it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

He was 19. Cut this victim blaming bullshit.

No, fuck not holding dumbfucks responsible for being dumb as fuck.