> Moreover, it seems like they may be serving public HTML somewhere that links to these files. As a result, hundreds are in Google search results, many containing PII
It kind of is, though. Google doesn't randomly try to visit every URL on the internet. It follows links. Therefore, for these files to be indexed by Google, they need to be linked to from somewhere.
Can you actually explain why the phrase you cited from OP is wrong? You say that ~”files need to be linked to from somewhere” is correct. How is a file linked to from somewhere [on the internet] if it’s not being served on the internet that Google crawls (ie, HTML)? The only alternative is in… API calls? That Google probably isn’t crawling?
“Fiverr might be hosting public HTML somewhere” seems like an entirely reasonable alternative phrase to “these links must be linked from somewhere [that Google can crawl] “, at least to someone who is only superficially familiar with how search works.
The distinction you imply is obvious is not, and your point is thus rather confusing to someone who is not you.
It’s a huge mistake to assume these links have to originate from fiverr-hosted HTML, it’s far more likely Google is finding them from places like GitHub repos used by fiverr-users.
It's exactly how it works, pages don't just magically appear in Google's index.
You need links to pages either from your own website or backlinks from other websites. Alternatively if the page is in your sitemap then Google will typically pick it up or you can manually submit it for indexing. For important pages you would typically want internal links, backlinks, and have it in your sitemap.
I’ve spend hundreds of thousands on just the hardware to store for all my pirated home theatre content.
I’d gladly pay money for it, but that’s not actually possible. The main cost of not pirating would be time, which is unacceptable because I’m neither a teenager nor poor.
Similarly, as a rich person who travels a lot, official sports streams just aren’t available for me.
Just for fun, I tried to Google and find an official site to watch LaLiga games:
Why would criticising people for their religious-adjacent views be worse than criticising people for their political views?
I’m sure you’d find your own comment reprehensible if you replaced “MAGA” with “Jewish”. But why? Both are just groups of people who choose to believe in certain things.
Because some of these are clear choices, others are not.
You can be critical of Israel and I'm fine with that - and I'm plenty critical of Israel myself. But to say 'Most Jews are lunatics' is absolutely beyond the pale.
You could say this in more general terms about all people that are religious but you didn't do that and FYI Jews don't generally have a choice about their Jewishness, just like you don't have any choice about which family you were born into.
You could even make the case that most religious people had no choice in their adoption of that religion, but most people have the theoretical option of letting go of their religion if they so desire, but you can not stop being a Jew. This little detail was baked into the religion and it is a serious problem for those that are Jewish and that wish to get away from it - and these people really do exist -, but they can not change their identity to a degree that they themselves would recognize as sufficient, besides, their environment usually also does not recognize it.
In the interest of furthering your knowledge about this:
I get all this is complicated, and maybe you really can't follow this in which case my apologies but there is a significant choice between who you work for (say, Palantir, Facebook, OpenAI or Twitter) vs what family you are born into.
As for political beliefs: yes, I'm critical of those that carry water for Trump, Putin, Netanyahu and their cronies, they're out to destroy the world as we know it and if you help enable that you are imnsho part of the problem.
> But to say 'Most Jews are lunatics' is absolutely beyond the pale.
The misquote here does not feel accidental.
I said:
> We’re not allowed to criticise Israel because most jews are lunatics that consider such criticism an antisemitic attack on their person
If “Most Jews consider criticism of Israel to be an attack on their person” is true, then it certainly follows that “Most Jews are lunatics”.
> You could even make the case that most religious people had no choice in their adoption of that religion, but most people have the theoretical option of letting go of their religion if they so desire, but you can not stop being a Jew
Yes, I am aware that some people choose to believe this. However, outside of a specific religious community people will generally not consider you to be a Jew unless you identify as such.
I personally am not religious and therefore don’t subscribe to the belief that people can’t stop being Jews.
The idea that the cut happened when Epstein was supposedly killing himself is something you invented yourself, not something even remotely supported by evidence.
I'm confused what your core disagreement is? It seems like you're narrowing in on some relatively unimportant detail. Using your own source, what is the likely explanation for the tape shenanigans? Who cares if op was inaccurate to the exact specifics of the missing footage? Or am I not understanding the implication of the article you cited?
Okay, I got that part wrong, but doesn't the fact it was edited out make it even more convincing there' a coverup? There's not even plausible deniability when it's been edited.
They edited out cameras restarting at exactly midnight?
That seems totally unsurprising to anyone who has ever worked with real CCTV setups, they’re flaming heaps of garbage from garbage suppliers set up by garbage contractors.
The hostages are a small slice of what remains- why dont you post a minority graph of jews in the middle east? Or all minorities.. maybe because it looks like a genocide, if you post it..
> If im cycling through a shared space, I find it extremely rude to ring the bell, because it feels like I'm telling people to get out of my way, but they have just as much right to a shared path as I do.
It’s certainly rude to ring the bell in a aggressive manner, but many bells are capable of producing much softer, more polite sounds.
In super busy old European capitals I find that people increasingly just ride around with speakers playing a constant tune at a reasonable volume, a massive improvement on dense streets full of varyingly sober people.
> In super busy old European capitals I find that people increasingly just ride around with speakers playing a constant tune at a reasonable volume, a massive improvement on dense streets full of varyingly sober people.
I sometimes do that. It helps not having music that could be described as aggressive. I often use reggae.
However it means you need a speaker charged so it is not something I have ready everytime I use my bicycle, nor do I want to carry it everyday when leaving the bike attached somewhere so it can't be the goto solution.
I still think that ringing bells at people is a little rude, regardless of the tone. Like imagine if you were at the grocery store, blocking the isle and someone lightly chimed a bell at you instead of just saying "excuse me".
IMO if I'm in a dense pedestrian zone and I can't go around people and I can't communicate by voice, it means I'm going too fast.
It's just cultural. If there's a cultural expectation of the ring/honk it's not rude. e.g. in India people will honk as a form of active group flock behaviour but foreigners will interpret it as everyone saying "get out of my way"; but in some European countries I have seen that people use the bell (much less noisy than the typical Indian street) and it's got the same meaning. In Hawaii, if you ever honk at someone, you're going to have a fight on your hands. In San Francisco, if you honk at someone and you're on Bush Street it means you're trying to help the traffic light change (it's a team effort) but anywhere else you get anything from a gun drawn, to a brake check, to a wave in apology for missing the light by being on the phone.
Overall, cultural expectations are everything here so it's best to just "when in Rome, do as Romans do".
It was a not-particularly-amusing joke that people honk because doing so helps the light change. It doesn’t, of course, but I used to work at a building at the intersection of Bush and Sansome (I think), the Standard Oil Building, and every day at 5 PM the honking would put Bombay to shame.
I don't agree with the former, a bell is not rude if you actuate it in advance from far enough. I do that if I see people about to cross my path but looking somewhere else or if there are kids wandering because I know that kids tend to be imprevisible, are often not very aware of their surrounding and have a smaller field of view. If you are just a handful of meters from them, it is just too late to ring a bell, you should have slowed down already anyway.
There is nothing to be done against old people using noise so I just prepare to stop.
On shared use trails, I suspect your voice might give out (especially given the headphone status of most pedestrians) and a bicycle bell is less ambiguous than a voice, which could be a fast walker, a runner, or a bicyclist.
Here the pedestrian-bicycle problems are much more likely to occur on dedicated bike paths than in pedestrian zones (where bicyclists must ride at walking speed). Usually a pedestrian nonchalantly crossing the bike path at an angle without paying the slightest attention to what they're doing.
The same people tend to ignore the bell. They're in their own world. I usually shout at them to move in that case. A friend of mine instead bought a loud horn connected to a can of compressed gas, which commands attention much more easily than a puny little bell. Works on car drivers, too.
Pedestrians still exist in non dense zones. It seems there's no way to win. I've been told that I should use a bell because vocal addresses are too startling.
Now if there's not enough room to pass safely and silently I completely slow to the pedestrians speed and THEN calmly say excuse me. But I'm convinced that there is just no universally correct way to do it. If you pass people in any way whatsoever, sooner or later someone is going to get mad about it.
> Now if there's not enough room to pass safely and silently I completely slow to the pedestrians speed and THEN calmly say excuse me. But I'm convinced that there is just no universally correct way to do it.
Anyone who is mad that you politely passed them at a safe speed is just too sensitive about these things. You're totally fine there. But "room to pass safely and silently" could still piss people off depending on your speed and distance.
The conclusion I came to is that being totally fine there is independent from whether people could get pissed off about a thing. I try operate in a safe and reasonable manner. I'm sure some people are pissed, as some people will always be.
> imagine if you were at the grocery store, blocking the isle and someone lightly chimed a bell at you instead of just saying "excuse me"
Greetings from Sweden, where some people will verbally announce "honk honk" (tuut tuut) while avoiding eye contact – then bump into your leg with their grocery cart.
If you're in a grocery store and aren't maintaining enough situational awareness to preemptively move out of somebody's way, I file that as rude. I'm sure the ingredients on that box of slop are very engaging, but you should still be able to see and hear a shopping car rolling up on you.
I'm also in Europe, and I always just either say the equivalent in the local language, or just use english. Even in the smallest most remote villages, you'd be pretty hard pressed to find someone who doesn't know the word "sorry".
I’ve found that speaking the wrong language often results in people freezing up as they process what I just said to them, that’s often counterproductive.
On a recent visit to Finland I found out that basically all supermarkets sell aluminium foil bags for the purpose of cooking sausages on the sauna stove while you use the sauna.
This is not how Google works.
reply