I guess it doesn’t help you to say it now, but this was a terrible way to deal with a slight nuisance from what has to be a small group of stupid people. This has the potential to cause far greater intrusion and judgement from your coworkers than your lack of marriage and kids ever would have done, and this especially with a crowd that love gossip. You’ve potentially handed them the juiciest gossip they’ll likely ever get and given how dull the workplace can be, they’ll be milking it for years if they find out.

I think you’re pretty much in it for the long haul now, which will take work to maintain, and also depending on how long you work at this place with these guys, you better hope your unusually youthful appearance stays at a consistent 18 years behind your real age and doesn’t hit a sudden inflection point where it suddenly all catches up because that’ll be tough to account for.

I’ve read that masks do not actually thwart these systems.

So, if I’m to take their message as intended, in addition to avoiding sports and education, I ought to avoid religion too? Are there more pages to this saying something along the lines of “… Except my favourite religion?” Otherwise, I mean, I’m confused what they want me to do here?

Wouldn’t be surprised if that’s how it shakes out in time or in the reality behind the pr piece but the article does specifically mention that that this extends to employees too and that was actually what the quote in the headline was in reference to specifically.

This action was so fucked up and beyond my list of shitty things that the US might do that it honestly didn’t occur to me and so when reading the headline I found it confusingly phrased but thought maybe it somehow meant there was some hint of support for the ICC’s decision and warrants which would have been amazing. Imagine the rollercoaster for me when they actually managed to surprise me with a decision and stance worse than I could have imagined.

Yikes wtf? That’s a terrible idea, recipes for fan forced already compensate the temperature so everyone will be getting it wrong. That’s crazy.

Never heard of anything on the playlist before and I doubt I would have really stumbled on it normally because it’s not the style I normally seek out but so far it all slaps. How is it they’re allowed to include this stuff on their website?

It’s just like that. Actually it’s an interesting point about wanting to try it again and get it right. I think that’s a layer that probably explains some of the feeling like I miss something that actually wasn’t great to experience.

I opened up my post again the next day and immediately thought of that. Don’t know why I didn’t when I wrote the title haha

This puts it well.

The experience of nostalgia I understand is bittersweet and often melancholy. I guess what I’m finding strange is that normally one experiences nostalgia for something they’d actually like to be able to return to, and that usually means something that they actually liked, a previous happiness. Weirdly I seem to be pining for a particular way I felt that actually, sucked at the time. It’s weird. I know what you mean about it being best not to dwell but it’s such a powerful draw, it’s like I’m swimming around the edges of a vortex.

Didn’t know they’d taken out the storage drives but I was aware despite my general ignorance that it’s not turnkey ready to go. I guess what I’m wondering is, is there any part of the of the process involved in designing and building such a supercomputing cluster that is already taken care by buying it in the manner that it has been sold and could that in any way offset the increased costs of trying to bring such a cluster online rather than starting from scratch? I’m not saying it is the case, so much as wondering aloud for anyone with expertise to chime in, to see if that’s a way it could make sense.

I understand there’s a mountain to climb to bring this thing in to a usable state for anyone, but could it maybe get you to base camp more quickly?

Does the hardware being all so arranged as it is in this manner to create a supercomputer make any difference to that evaluation? Like does the work of putting all the outdated hardware together in the complex way needed to make it functional for supercomputing make it potentially cheaper than buying more modern hardware but having to build it all yourself?

Holy shit.

Arguing with people on lemmy, people are wrong and the internet and the world totally needs my opinions to correct them.

Yes, but in the context of the comment to which I’m replying, I say scare quotes because the commenter has interpreted editorial intent behind the choice of how and where the punctuation has been used beyond simply establishing that the word is a direct quote.

While I kind of disagree with what that intent is, hence my reply to them, I agree with the original commenter that there is reason to believe the quotation marks served more purpose in that headline than simple punctuation. As a quote, it’s an odd choice, given it’s a single word long, conveys nothing that the sentence without the marks couldn’t have said and used to complete a sentence that is otherwise entirely constructed by the author.

I and the person to which I replied have interpreted this choice as a form of editorial commentary upon the reasoning behind the policy being discussed in the article. In the original commenter’s case they’re taking it to mean that the article’s author thinks the premise of iphones having security problems is so absurd that the people claiming such must be crazy (which the commenter obviously does not agree with). I don’t take from it such an extreme implication, although I do read some kind of implied commentary and given that this security concern has nuance to it that a headline would struggle to convey, I have suggested perhaps that that punctuation is serving to subvert or undermine the supposed security concern in some way. When that writing technique is employed, the punctuation is referred to as scare quotes.

Or you know, we’re just reading tea leaves and it’s just a one word quote, but there’s the rationale for you at least so you know why I chose that term specifically.

I don’t know too much about the relative security chops of different smartphones, however in terms of what’s actually in this article it seems reasonable for the government department to consider the iphone a security issue within the context where it presents this particular problem and for the reason why it presents that problem for them. However, it does also seem like the very reason this is a security concern in this more narrow context is arguably a better security option in almost every other context so I wonder if that’s what they were getting at with the scare quotes.

In the case of defence personnel entering secure locations they say the iphone represents a threat because it doesn’t allow 3rd party apps to control inherent functions of the device, so the defence force cannot use an app they developed which would presumably do things like disable all voice recording abilities so they can be sure that people walking around secure locations aren’t unknowingly or deliberately transmitting or recording conversations and sensitive information. I can see why this would be a problem for them, however if you don’t work in defence and are an average consumer, the fact that random 3rd party developers can not do exactly what such an app would be designed to prevent sounds like a more secure way to operate. In that scenario, apps are incapable of controlling inherent functions of the phone unless they’re developed by Apple. Obviously this leaves the door just as open for untrustworthy behaviour from Apple themselves, but if you’ve chosen to trust them, you can at least be sure that no one else is controlling your device in ways you wouldn’t want, unless the device is somehow hacked but in that case, well it really doesn’t matter which phone it is because somehow it’s security has been circumvented and at that point all bets are off.

I think there has to be at least little more to this than that. There’s some complicated implications taking this to logical extremes, what of the adult industry for example? But really, it’s hardly a stretch to say the whole theme around which these cafes operate is degrading. Typically cafe work doesn’t require a worker to behave or be encouraged to be objectified in this way and in a normal cafe context, most of the whole maid cafe schtick would be considered pretty inappropriate.

He was a buay man with all the salad and calendar making and had no time to just wait around for a kid to come out whenever they felt like it.

That’s also my issue with it, in as much as how they went about it was installing a facial recognition system. Damn things ought to be illegal.