Why not couch the article as “a vulnerability was found and patched” instead of “something bad could have happened”?
“STORE COULD HAVE BEEN ROBBED!! A bystander noticed the door wasn’t locked, with the owner realizing he hadn’t been locking it correctly. There is no evidence anyone broke in.”
News in the porcelain village in Oz.
Also Weinstein hiring Black Cube to discredit his accusers. Black Cube is all ex spies and sophisticated malware. Fusion centers are all about parallel reconstruction. Taking on a corp / billionaire (the legal way) means going up against a nation state level threat.
I’m not complaining, I’m giving you a relevant example of where these labels come from. It’s .ml and .world and I just don’t have any recent memory of this on .world. I’m sure there’s an example or two, just not recent.
I was silent because I wasn’t sure what people were saying. I don’t think people who disagree with what I say are necessarily misinformed, or less intelligent, or mean. So it comes down to how I am certain people (including you) know that what is written on paper and what flows in reality are not 1:1 matches. But they tell me something they wouldn’t accept if they were in my shoes.
Maybe that skepticism sounds ridiculous? But if structure is important and reality can be different and everyone knows this I think it’s odd to see officially meaningless official material in the room. Why can’t we throw it out?
Edit: imagine we’re pointing out that America is controlled by billionaires and someone links the official site saying “No, it’s still three branches and the will of the people.” You toss it immediately.
The other day I was on all and ended up reading a comment chain and saw something like “Cuba is a democracy, and for proof just look at the official website of the central party.”
I found it ridiculous to essentially say “Doug is a skilled electrician, for proof look at this note Doug wrote saying he’s a skilled electrician.”
This made me a dirty shitlib (I guess the instance I signed up on makes me a liberal). The reaction seemed intense so I checked and it was .ml, so I assume it’s a rivalry thing.
You’ll see me venting and shitting on eg conservatives but I don’t go around calling people these things. You probably don’t either. But clearly there are users categorizing us into labels and associating us with our instances regardless of merit.
Melinda Tankard Reist.
Michael Miebach.
Ryan McInerney.
Humans > branding and corporation names.
When CVS “used racist AI” I didn’t see a single goddamn peep about the CEOs in charge while they had that policy.
We should name the board and the whole leadership system but at least mentioning CEOs would be a great start.