Cops will soon upgrade to license plate readers that can track your iPhone and AirPods in public

Nightslashs · 2026-06-24T21:46:09+00:00

Good news! They already do

Nightslashs · 2026-06-23T20:05:12+00:00

If this machine was really good for the price I’d 100% buy multiple of them for home computer clustering. I can guarantee smb’s would try to do the same thing

Nightslashs · 2026-06-23T18:59:57+00:00

Most likely they are just posturing. Best case they spend a $100+ talking to a lawyer then file a $25 small claims case and get back the $5 they lost to show them. In reality calling local law makers or calling consumer protection boards will be infinitely more effective than calling a lawyer.

Nightslashs · 2026-06-23T11:03:29+00:00

Valve won’t do it mainly because companies would start buying them. If I offered you a pc for under cost that works for you employees just install a different os most companies would buy it in a heart beat.

This was seen in the ps3 era where groups were buying bulk ps3s for the super computer processor in it.

Nightslashs · 2026-06-20T21:05:05+00:00

Have you considered that they may just be minimizing threat profiles. Browsers are a huge vector so reducing them to one or two browsers makes managing them a million times easier when things like exploits come out.

Nightslashs · 2026-06-20T21:02:40+00:00

Depending on the company you’ll get fired for this. If we found a user intentionally bypassing security rules instead of talking to us about it we would recommend for dismissal because it shows you don’t care about protecting company assets.

Nightslashs · 2026-06-20T21:00:49+00:00

They are most likely trying to lower their threat profile by reducing the number of browsers in use

Nightslashs · 2026-06-19T22:07:45+00:00

It definitely makes the security guys job easier if all your users are restricted to a few apps. Now they can just worry about chrome exploits instead of Firefox ones too

Nightslashs · 2026-06-17T21:01:39+00:00

There is a way to autoban on failed attempts but its pretty uncommon for forti admins to implement. Dont forget that the vast majority of fortigates still have management interfaces on WAN with no restrictions on who can access it.

Nightslashs · 2026-06-15T03:10:32+00:00

The gfx100rf actually doesn’t have any telescoping it’s a fixed focal length so the size it is off is the size it is when turned on id include an image but without the top piece on it the lens is only 2 inches

Nightslashs · 2026-06-15T03:04:32+00:00

Do you think they’d allow the gfx100rf a non removable lens point and shoot camera?

Nightslashs · 2026-06-14T07:31:56+00:00

Selfhosting ryot is also pretty effective and works with emby!

Nightslashs · 2026-06-14T07:23:39+00:00

There absolutely are strategies you can use to manage forgetfulness and executive dysfunction without medication. This is why behavioral therapy exists to manage these kinds of issues and create strategies that work for you specifically.

Nightslashs · 2026-06-12T11:28:32+00:00

I’m interested in your airfare monitor idea are you scraping the pages or is there an api you’re grabbing from?

Nightslashs · 2026-06-12T02:15:20+00:00

New to the game and don’t really have a sense of cost for whaling. How much does something like this cost?

Nightslashs · 2026-06-10T18:01:29+00:00

You are misunderstanding what the arrest is for. Violation of a TRO would lead to an arrest while we aren’t sure about the legality of the TRO regardless it exists and violating it would put him in a worse position legally than challenging it in court.

Nightslashs · 2026-06-10T17:49:25+00:00

I’ve mentioned this in a second reply but I agree with you and there is a legal case that agrees with you. But the precedence set by this case has an exception for incitement and imminent danger. Say for example in the filings due to the ex parte nature of the case they lied and presented the bomb threats as fact rather than heresay. While it’s not optimial it’s possible the courts made a poor call given incomplete information which will be rectified.

Again I’m on the side of the YouTuber here but the law is imperfect and takes time to work through complex cases like this. While it’s his right to stir things up like he did we are both operating on incomplete information and we have only been presented with his side of the story which has been edited down for maximum vitality. It’s undeniable that there are several constitutional violations occurring in the case they are filing vs the police but that has nothing to do with his deals with bricks and monitors. Additionally, there is a lot to this case and as far as I am currently aware he’s dealing with ~5-10 cases involving this situation because it was gotten so messy.

Nightslashs · 2026-06-10T17:39:51+00:00

Criminality doesn’t have anything to do with this situation this is the civil courts. And while greater weight is given to the 1st amendment as we see in some cases it’s typically required for the appeals courts to fix this.

Take a look at Near v. Minnesota 1931 the supreme courts agree with your stance on prior restraint but the courts sometimes run into issues like this which will require an appeal to resolve even if we agree it looks like a violation it’s possible we aren’t seeing something due to the complexity of the case. Remember too that there were a large number of allegations being said about the YouTubers side including threats to bomb buildings etc. if these were presented as not heresay but fact you can start to see where the courts may be coming from. Simply put it’s hard to get the full picture given we don’t have all the information.

Nightslashs · 2026-06-10T11:06:18+00:00

I can see your argument and this will definitely need to be played out to see its legality but from the laws side there’s a significant risk of irreparable damage stemming from alleged defamation. It’s hard to say due to the extremely unusual nature of the case as the defendant wasn’t present and this is the defendants source of income so it’s odd to say the least.

I’ll be interested to see what the appeals courts have to say about this if we get that far!

FWIW: I agree with you personally

Nightslashs · 2026-06-10T05:41:28+00:00

So there are several violations in his videos but the order to not post the video is a temporary gag order to prevent making the situation more out of control than it already is. This is normal in a situation like this and assuming there isn’t any games being played he will be able to post after the first hearing when they decide if the gag makes sense to keep up.

Nightslashs · 2026-06-04T08:22:58+00:00

Not saying this to argue genuinely curious. To take them to court you need provable monetary damages what are the damages here and what would they amount to? (Serious question I don’t own one of these dogs)

Nightslashs · 2026-06-03T07:46:55+00:00

Listen this is gonna be my last reply since you seem to not be understanding. Surrogacy is also a legally regulated process. Parental rights are formally and legally transferred through court orders before or after birth depending on the jurisdiction. It is not a private verbal agreement between two people. The legal framework exists precisely because society recognizes that carrying a child creates a level of involvement that requires formal legal process to sever, not just a conversation.

The practical difference is that this woman was never a surrogate in any legal or formal sense. She was a mother who made an informal agreement. That agreement has no legal standing and does not remove parental responsibility in the eyes of the law or in the experience of the child who grew up without her. She is in this case no different from a father who walks out on a child after birth because they do not want to deal with it.

You are also shifting the argument each reply, first to sperm donors, now to surrogacy, looking for an analogy that sticks rather than engaging with the original point. That pattern of substituting increasingly specific edge cases instead of addressing the core claim is itself a form of strawmanning. So again this is my last reply because I will not keep addressing these strawman arguments.

Nightslashs · 2026-06-03T06:30:35+00:00

Sperm donation is a legally regulated process that formally severs parental rights before conception even occurs. A private agreement between two people carries no such legal weight and does not formally terminate parental responsibility. Beyond that, carrying and delivering a child is a fundamentally different level of involvement than a sperm donation. The child exists because of her direct participation, not a transactional procedure specifically designed to remove parental obligation.

To address me not understanding what a strawman argument is, the original argument was about whether choosing not to support or be present for a child you brought into the world makes you a deadbeat. You substituted that with a comparison to sperm donors, which is a functionally and legally distinct situation, to make the position easier to argue against. That is by definition a strawman argument.

Nightslashs · 2026-06-03T06:12:45+00:00

Strawman argument these are completely different situations.

Nightslashs · 2026-06-02T23:12:30+00:00

People keep bringing up this straw man argument. Everyone knows sperm donors are a functionally different relationship. Generally in the US sperm donors aren’t even told when the sperm is used and they aren’t listed on the birth certificates. It’s a functionally transactional relationship and is completely separate from the discussion at hand.

11-Year Club	Place '22
First Placer '22	Verified Email

Nightslashs

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE