This is almost certainly because a member of the public phoned the police/FBI and alleged that GM was /u/maxwellhill, not that it was part of the FBI’s case. Look at the other stuff on the list.
I don’t know if the claim is “absurd” but it appears to be essentially baseless.
I don’t think this is true at all. What do you mean by “general bricks”? If anything there is more brick-built stuff nowadays.
For example the Creator 3-in-1 Castle (which I got for my son for Christmas) is pretty similar to castle sets I had as a child but basically way better and with brick built horses rather than large mould ones
The 3-in-1 sets (where the set numbers actually begin with 31) should really be the first thing you look at when choosing a set for a child, and they deserve more praise. There are a lot of cool 3-in-1 sets out there. That castle (31168) is really good (and those horses are too!), and the haunted mansion (31167) is just cool with minifigs which are a hit with any kid.
For a small and cheap present that hamster (31376) is just too cute to pass up too.
It feels like those sets are where the Lego designers get to do their thing and do it right, without the weight of licenced IP (of which there is so much) and the trite offerings of the City range.
Other ones that to me felt like completely fair value and better than anything I had as a child were the Creator Bunny, Space Telescope, and Space Robot. Something like £18/£25/£25 the second two having light bricks included.
JK Brickworks has an alt build for the bunny that doesn’t require a massive amount of different pieces and makes it lay mini eggs.
The citation for your quote appears to be an unsourced Reddit post.
The agreement at the heart of 5 Eyes is to not surveil the other nations - this must be up there for most persistently misunderstood fact among techies (probably why AI spits it out)
Unless there’s new information, this is exactly what the Snowden leaks exposed.
Snowden wasn’t showing the world the NSA surveillance systems against them; he was trying to show that the US was illegally spying on its own citizens by leveraging the five-eyes countries to collect and aggregate the data on their behalf.
I was always baffled by this "revelation". Everyone has always known about the five-eyes arrangement. It was common knowledge when I was growing up in the 70s. It wasn't new info.
There were a lot of things Snowden revealed, but most assuredly it was also about spying on US citizens. The NSA directly wiretapping people, even in cases when all communication was domestic. The NSA working to bypass security via routers diverted during shipping to Google, Facebook, and others, backdoors installed, thus compromising their infrastructure.
Back to the 5eyes, there is a difference in terms of scope and scale, when it comes to a foreign country spying on your citizens, and you doing it. The scope is entirely different, the scale, the capability.
It does matter whether it is 5eyes doing it, or whether it is domestic.
Now, does this stance matter overall? I don't know. It's a nice moral stance, I think. Is it functionally realistic?
The agreement, conveniently, isn't legally binding. It's a gentleman's agreement between utter scoundrels, formed to give a semblance of trustworthiness.
As an Australian, I wouldn't trust it at all. The US government has already asked the Australian government for highly expanded information on Australian citizens, and that's above the table.
Stop believing what these people are telling you. They have an awful track record, and the people making the statements now are even worse than the previous people.
> Ludicrous to call William Perrin “the founder” of Ofcom or refer to it as “his” quango
From his own Carnegie UK webpage linked above:
> William was instrumental in creating Ofcom, reforming the regulatory regimes of several sectors and kicking off the UK government’s interest in open data.
William was awarded an OBE for his highly influential work at Carnegie UK with Prof Lorna Woods that underpinned the UK government’s approach to regulating online services.
How is he not a founder of Ofcom?
That’s not a conspiracy theory, that’s just a verifiable statement of fact.
Or is it the use of the word founder you object to? If you prefer, “was instrumental in setting up and is closely related to the running of Ofcom”.
Both the use of “founder” and “the” are inaccurate and misleading (I notice you’ve switched to “a” without comment). He was a government adviser 20 years ago that was central to the work of creating Ofcom. How is he closely related to the running of Ofcom, today?
The conspiracy theory is your suggestion he is deriving some kind of financial benefit to Carnegie via Yoti - what is the basis for this? (I agree it would be a conflict of interest, though not hypocritical).
How is "algorithmic feed" related to safety? Or is it, along with seemingly arbitrary numbers like 7 or 34 millions, a way to target a specific platform for those who are afraid to spell the name explicitly?
One of the main motivations for this law was pro-suicide and pro-anorexia content being pushed to teenage girls. In particular Molly Russell's death received a lot of press coverage and public outrage at tech companies. The coroner's report basically said Instagram killed her. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Molly_Russell
Of course if you get your news from HN then the motivation is actually something to do with limiting discussion of immigration or being dystopian just because.
But yes, if they could just name Instagram and TikTok they probably would.
The phrase they actually use is "content recommender system". The definition is in the link; you could maybe see some search features falling into it but I don't see how Wikipedia as it exists now is Category 1.
I think the general point is you are presenting something as a hardship that is a quality of life unachievable for most people (even in the UK), and unthinkable for most people in the recent past, even in the West.
You come across as out of touch and entitled. You live in the future - enjoy it!
I don't think this hypothetical behaviour would change the 95th percentile or any percentiles below it, would it?
If the income of everybody above the 80th percentile dropped to be equal to the 81st percentile, the 80th percentile income wouldn't change the ones above would just be very closely bunched.
(Last time I checked the opposite was true and they got more spread out)
I think it would, once you put in place mechanisms to move your income down to below £100k, you can and probably should tweak them further to reduce your tax bill even further.
I don’t know if the claim is “absurd” but it appears to be essentially baseless.
reply