TWeaK

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago

I know what you mean. Archive.today is functionally better, but only because they're so scummy.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

Where's the proof though? It's easy to say you've deleted data.

What's more, 3rd parties could have had access to the data, even if only to provide the service, and that's just another party you're blindly trusting.

The cat is long since out the bag. The sooner we make raw data freely available to everyone the better - that's certainly a more realistic hope than controlling data access or even getting businesses to pay people for the data they steal from them.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Yay for using archive.org and not one of the archive.today knock offs that poison DNS for various providers.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

That's not Goth, that's emo!

Who am I kidding, they're basically the same thing.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

It could be fake, but it's just as, if not more likely real. The video is clearly a public road with other traffic around (waiting at the lights).

Also Tesla are having enough difficulty getting their autopilot features signed off, and Apple definitely wouldn't want to advertise their Vision as a tool you can use while driving.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

Neobackup, thanks, I'll give that a try. I've used Titanium Backup back in the day, and maybe one or two others, but not had any luck with restoring into a new install.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

"Don't worry, he counts as an officer".

They didn't literally say that though. They simply referred to the previous part that said "or hold any office in the US". It's pretty obvious that's what he meant, but it isn't explicitly what was said or written.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago

Yeah the current SCOTUS could be expected to twist the words any which way. Hopefully not, but it wouldn't be out of character.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Comforting.

However, the cynic in me would point out that referring someone to previous part of the text doesn't explicitly include the President in the latter part. Someone who swore an oath as an officer could not become President, but if the President is not considered an officer and that person was never an officer in any other capacity, they could still slip through the cracks.

That's quite clearly the wrong interpretation, and I feel dirty for suggesting it, but there is still a small amount of uncertainty in the letter of it all.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago

I agree also, it's a ridiculous insinuation. But it's also the most likely way that Trump might get off.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

YouTube? Works for some stuff lol

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Unfortunately region locked.

view more: ‹ prev next ›