TWeaK

joined 1 year ago
[–] TWeaK@lemmy.today 15 points 1 week ago (9 children)

Sounds like the Ukrainian radar bit is a side note, the main thing is that they don't have to visually identify objects. This means they don't have to scramble a jet to intercept before firing.

However the downside of this is that it dramatically increases the chance of shooting down the wrong aircraft.

[–] TWeaK@lemmy.today 1 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

That's an interesting argument, however it probably wouldn't go that far.

Taking it back to retro interpretations, sharing your photo with meta is basically the same as sharing your photo with a print company that takes and processes your negatives. They're acting on your behalf in a limited scope, so sharing with them is the same as you doing it all yourself.

However it maybe comes back into play when that scope isn't limited, as Meta require in their terms of service. It doesn't matter what individuals say to Meta regarding their data, their prohibition is superseded by other users, who agree that they have permission to share other people's information with Meta.

Meta isn't breaking privacy laws - you are.

[–] TWeaK@lemmy.today 52 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

...Is he wearing glasses with zero prescription, so that it makes him look smart?

[–] TWeaK@lemmy.today 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

They're already working hard ensuring your local network web is free from bugs.

[–] TWeaK@lemmy.today 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Hot take, but the invasion of privacy only actually occurs when someone publishes the recording. Otherwise, making a personal recording of what someone can see or hear is no more invasive than them being there.

You can't claim an expectation of privacy against someone when you're stood in the same room with them.

[–] TWeaK@lemmy.today 89 points 1 month ago (8 children)

"Upload your ID for every transaction to prove you're not a sex offender".

[–] TWeaK@lemmy.today 1 points 1 month ago

Don't you know it.

[–] TWeaK@lemmy.today 4 points 1 month ago

Bathrooms smell after people have had a shit, even when they flush.

Bathrooms smell less when people flush with the lid down.

[–] TWeaK@lemmy.today 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

A man trap isn't a style of lid though, it's more about how it's installed. The seat and lid are installed just a little too far back, such that the lid leans against the cistern but when you lift the seat it never full reaches 90°, and just falls back down. So guys always have to hold the seat up while they pee, and it's always down ready for women.

A soft close lid is the cure for this, actually. The tension in the soft close mechanism keeps the seat up.

[–] TWeaK@lemmy.today 11 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Anecdotally it's pretty accurate, toilets smell less when the lids are kept down. Smell strength is directly proportional to the amount of particles in the air.

[–] TWeaK@lemmy.today 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

I lived in a house owned by a female vicar once, and all the seats had man traps. This is where the lid will stay up, but when you lift the seat up and let it go it falls back down. These seats would end up pulling the lid down also.

After a while I noticed that these toilets didn't actually smell that much, because the lid was pretty much always down. By preventing the piss and shit particles from getting up into the air by the lid, this meant that you didn't breathe in piss and shit, which meant that you didn't smell it.

[–] TWeaK@lemmy.today 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Before and after. Unless you like that little splash of dirty water on your taint.

view more: next ›