For cases like this, it's better to install the "protonmail bridge" application and use whichever local mail client you like. I have Thunderbird and a local Postfix relay aimed at my bridge and it works very well and certainly doesn't need javascript.
This is grey-hat at best. Intent may have been good, but the fact is that this team created and distributed software to access and exfiltrate data without permission which is very illegal. You may want to consult with the legal department before posting about this on a public forum fyi.
It's largely folklore, but there is a kernel of truth to it. Orange cats have a pretty "silly" attitude, kind of like golden retriever dogs. Black/tux cats are usually docile and friendly. Female tortiseshell/tabby cats are lunatics. But there's also quite a bit of individual variation. I'd say it varies more from cat to cat than the "breed" would imply.
Can confirm female tortiseshell cats are, yes- lunatic is the best way to describe their personality. My family had several and they were all a combination of smart and crazy, mostly the latter. As a teenager I found it amusing to teach one of them to ride on my shoulder like a pirate's parrot. An unintended consequence is that she would also do that to house guests, who weren't expecting it, making a five foot vertical leap from ground level from behind to perch on their shoulder.
This describes my black cat exactly; she runs and hides at the door bell, but when it all calms down, she inevitably comes out to see who it is and within half hour is trying to climb in their lap and is begging for attention from the new person. I had an orange cat once and he pretty much thought he was the family dog. I’ve never seen a friendlier cat, didn’t matter if it was another cat, a dog, a person, or a squirrel; anyone who would play he was ready to go.
We have an almost pure-black void that screams bloody murder at everything--pick her up, screaming; walk in the room, screaming; give her food, screaming--but cuddles more aggressively than any cat I've ever heard of and purrs nonstop (when she isn't screaming). She hisses as a primary communications mechanism. I hear that cat hiss more in a day than every hiss from every other cat I've ever had combined. She also panic poops when the other cat gets within 5 feet.
More anecdata; my orange boy also thought he was the family dog. He was rather dumb as a rock, but sweet as pie. Loved every human or animal he ever met.
My current cat is a calico and white and she's...emotional. =)
My next door neighbour was a ginger crossed with a persian. Let's just say there was a LOT of orange. The cat was very friendly to humans, and an absolute terror to foxes and any cat they didn't consider a neighbour.
It doesn't really need to run anything "substantial" though. Running some janky wordpress site with some scabbed-on ecommerce customizations is like 50% of the internet.
It's called "WinPE" or Windows Preinstallation Environment. It's very strange. Tools you really think would work like Powershell are completely absent by default, and when added work in unexpected ways.
Adding drivers is also painful, since it doesn't really support all of the regular windows drivers. To sideload drivers you have to do it twice, once for the install image and once for the winpe image.
*My knowledge of this stuff is about 7 years outdated, so it's possible they've improved it since then... Unlikely but possible.
I did a bunch of work with WinPE for Win 7,8, and 10. Customizing the environment for automated deployment was a ton of fun. I really came to appreciate the tooling available in WinPE (and it's eccentricities). It's probably what really paved the way for my transition to Linux.
Honest question: what threats did Jones make against them? I understood that he claimed it was a hoax/conspiracy, not that he had made any threats. Not even sure how he could make threats against people he didn't believe were real.
I think that's a very different statement from "God, I hate that stupid priest. He's so meddlesome." Criticizing people should not count as incitement in a liberal society- consider whether people who told an audience that Trump was a fascist should be held accountable for the assassination attempts. This is defamation.
A court already determined he is guilty. If he thought he was innocent, he had the opportunity to present any defense he wanted. Whether or not he is at fault isn't a point of discussion because it's already been determined for a fact.
Yes, he is guilty. But he's guilty of defamation, not incitement. It is an important distinction because "I thought that was true" is a defense in a defamation case, but not in incitement- you can't say "the pope is catholic, go kill him now", regardless of whether he is actually catholic.
"He didn't present a defense therefore it has been determined for a fact that he is guilty" is not especially sound. You'd have to concede the existence of witches on the absurd end, and that everyone who makes a plea deal is guilty on the more rational end. He's guilty because he publicly made harmful defamatory statements that he privately did not believe, both of which are made clear by evidence.
>You’ve got parents laughing — ‘hahaha’ — and then they walk over to the camera and go ‘boo hoo hoo,’ and not just one but a bunch of parents doing this and then photos of kids that are still alive they said died? I mean, they think we’re so dumb.”
Re double standards on Trump, I think people are ok with criticizing power hungry politicians, less so with parents who have had their kids killed.
The Jones case was a civil case for damages. He's not going to prison or anything - just losing some assets. Trump is free to sue people who've implied he's a nazi (maybe he could start with JD) but I don't know how sympathetic a jury would be.
We're not discussing the case generally. We're asking if the assertion that he THREATENED anyone, holds water. So far, nobody has been able to provide any evidence, that he has.
Whatever you think about the case, it should be decided with factual statements, not emotional manipulative accusations that bend the truth.
>To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages
So probably no in that case as there was no significant damage. Sandy Hook was different in that there were ongoing threats and harassment for years.
A single person reacting that way is unlikely to make the speaker liable, but when a large crowd reacts the same way and the speaker does not make attempts to defuse the situation, then liability should be assigned.
So you’re saying that every supportive observer in every worldstar fight video should be held liable for any injuries? Not suggesting you’re wrong or right, but your approach places a novel legal burden on observers, and thus detaches it from actors, where the responsibility currently lies.
> So you’re saying that every supportive observer in every worldstar fight video should be held liable for any injuries?
Not at all - I'm saying the liability should go in the opposite direction. If worldstar fight videos incite lots of people to start fighting in the streets, then worldstar should be partially responsible unless they take actions to distance themselves from their viewers' actions.
With all that typing, you could have answered the actual question. As far as I know, there were no threats made by Alex Jones. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know.
I think this is the reason why "social media" seems so dead now. People stopped posting publicly (for obvious reasons) and almost all of the "social" web is in private group chats. People don't want their life broadcast permanently and prolifically anymore, and they want to share it with just a subset of their friends. The only people left posting to the "public web" are attention seekers, scammers, influencers, people that don't know any better.
I specifically bought a Mazda because it's the only car that feels safe to actually use. HVAC, audio, maps, calling, absolutely everything can be done with physical controls that minimize eyes-off-road time. There's no situation where you're sticking your arm out trying to tap some tiny on-screen button to get directions. Taking rides with other people in Teslas, subarus, fords, etc, is just wild. Having to go into a menu to change from vents to defrost is crazy, I don't understand how that's even legal.
I love that my Ford Focus' HVAC system is entirely disconnected from the rest, and fully button/dial controlled. I can turn off the infotainment screen radio thing and the HVAC unit still does its job. I love knowing that some software or hardware fault in the clumsy infotainment mess that every car maker ends up with won't get in the way of temperature control. We had a Citroen before, and "make it warmer" was multiple menus deep down the terrible touch screen swamp. It was obscene.
I actually wanted that Mazda, which takes the same idea to the max, but I couldn't justify the cost difference just for the buttons (it also looks way cooler than the Ford of course, but ok). The Ford strikes a decent balance IMO - besides the 100% buttonized HVAC, it has a touch screen for all the touchy navigationy carplay-y stuff, but eg volume control and map zoom have physical dials and play/pause/skip all have physical buttons too.
My wife and me disqualified most other brands purely for this reason. We'd open marketing sites and skip through the promo photos until we saw a picture of the dashboard. No buttons? Close tab. I love that apparently more brands are now figuring out that "ipad on wheels" designs drive people away.
I agree, I love the Mazda approach to this in my CX-50. I'm not even sure if the display is touchscreen or not, because I always use the wheel-clicker thingie in the console to control it.
This was an intentional design choice from Mazda, of course, that goes hand-in-hand with their philosophy of giving such control to the driver that they "[feel] oneness with the car, as if it is an extension of their body." [1]
When searching around for a quote like that, I found a HN discussion from 2019 about the Mazda decision to eliminate touchscreens. [2]
Mazda only enabled the touch on the LCD when the car was stopped. It seems that with the Gen4 models (2019 onward) they just cost-reduced the sensing circuit out of the design and nobody has really complained. Taking that layer out also reduces the spidering issue when the OCA fill rewets.
Same here, I went out with a sizeable budget and tried out many cars and ended up with a 2024 Mazda 3 Premium last November because it was the only vehicle that had every control available in a tactile way. I love the car still a year later, and this is something every passenger has commented on. The center screen is a touch screen but it gets disabled once you go over 10mph.
My Honda Fit 2015 is fond of displaying temporary banners on the touchscreen, declaring "This feature is not available while the vehicle is in motion.". But it never tells me _what_ feature is not available. I can't even remember the last time something was actually unavailable while in motion. Of course, I've gotten used to ignoring the message, except to sometimes wonder why it doesn't tell my which feature is unavailable.
Newer Subarus are more full touchscreen. Either 2020+ Outbacks, or 2024+ Foresters. And they have pretty ugly UIs and poor usage of the screen real-estate as well. It looks like the backup camera or Google Maps only use 7" of screen.
Sadly OSSEC is largely abandoned. Back in the day it was very good for a lightweight and effective security system for those that didn't want to install full-blown antivirus on everything. I wish they would donate the project to Linux Foundation or CNCF, but it seems destined for decline.
https://proton.me/mail/bridge