Is it surprising that people might miss that, though? Especially if they don’t already agree with the antifascist message.
Is it surprising that people might miss that, though? Especially if they don’t already agree with the antifascist message.
4 in particular I think is more open to interpretation based on ones existing biases than people seem to think. Being over the top doesn’t necessarily have to be mockery and authorial intent is peanuts to a random personwatching a movie.
The other points IIRC are individual moments rather than recurring themes. It’s not surprising to me that significant numbers of people overlook them.
Is it really that mind-boggling? ST has always seemed to me to read whichever way you are already predisposed to. How does everybody dying make it an anti-war movie? I would be shocked if the kind of person who believes in the good of a war machine were surprised that lots of people die in war.
Maybe my memory is a bit hazy, but the bugs actually annihilate a city, right? What is the human response supposed to be? The extreme nature of the government and military only come across as insane if you’ve already been educated about fascism. Desperate times do indeed call for desperate measures, which muddies the antifascist message in my opinion.
It’s a great movie, but anyone who thinks it’s going to change anyone’s mind from their preconceptions is fooling themselves.
What am I missing?
Water doesn’t go on the food pyramid, silly!
Providing sources is what makes me like perplexity.ai
Much less practical to show off your skull coloration when you’re trying to get laid.
Man, I don’t understand this sentiment at all. I don’t know what would be different from my setups, but KDE has always been rock solid for me. Back when I used it on Mandrake Linux and today.
OP, might you be an Arch user?
I did this over a decade ago and it’s still working. If I remember correctly I had to call to make it a permanent opt-out but it was totally worth it. My credit score was totally unaffected.
Essentially the same scenario with free credit reports and AnnualCreditReport.com. Just look up the instructions through ftc.gov whenever you’re unsure about something. I still follow the link to the credit report site from ftc.gov these days even though I remember the actual .com as well, just for good measure.
None of the points you make are wrong, it’s just a lot more uphill for hydrogen looking at the total picture. With almost every issue there is a way forward for hydrogen, but EVs are already significantly farther along the curve. It’s hard to overcome that kind of snowballing. Only time will tell!
It is great tech, but there are serious downsides too.
There are solutions as with any tech, but the transition picture with hydrogen is a lot lot worse than EVs. The least worst option tends to win.
Just plain old blue electrical arcs.
On the other hand, Cherenkov radiatiation is only indirectly related to criticality. It comes from any particle moving through a medium, generally water, faster than light travels through that medium. A luminous sonic boom of sorts! It’s associated with criticality because those are the contexts where it happens often enough to actually be visible.
Mercury-based diodes both look way cooler and are way less spooky than garden variety semicondictor diodes.
And the whole human body, brain and all, can run on ~100 watts. Truly astounding.
Oxygen ravages electrons all day at the end of the electron transport chain and nobody bats an eye, but you steal one pair off some DNA and everybody loses their minds!
Star Trek the Motion Picture
There’s no mention of anything like zero-days in that article. They only mention that it can target all major OSes, with no mention of cutting edge versions also being vulnerable.
Hilariously, the article directly supports my position as well:
The good news for some, at least: it likely poses a minimal threat to most people, considering the multi-million-dollar price tag and other requirements for developing a surveillance campaign using Sherlock
That’s a big part of my whole point. People who don’t do even a modicum of actual thought about a practical threat model for themselves love pretending that ad blocking isn’t primarily just about not wanting to see ads.
If Israel or some other highly capable attacker is coming after you, then fine, you really do need ad blocking. In that case malware in ads is going to be the least of your concerns.
Attacks that cast such a wide net as to be the concern of all web users are necessarily less dangerous because exploits need to be kept secret to avoid being patched.
There’s nothing wrong with taking extra precautions; I’m certainly not saying blocking ads is a bad idea. It’s the apparent confusion that an informed, tech-savvy person might choose not to block ads that makes me laugh.
You say with such confidence. Is it so hard to imagine people can defend themselves with means other than ad blocking?
Drive-by malware tends not to be zero-days though. I’ve stayed safe for decades just by keeping my software up to date.
Not an unreasonable interpretation!