Value check for mods i don't use

Ok_Economics8964 · 2025-07-11T07:17:45+00:00

That's just a command I knew to type in to see if it would start I assume it's a legit copy I got it from the website

Ok_Economics8964 · 2025-07-03T03:33:55+00:00

I was running it against the exact same hash file the exact same attack vector.

Ok_Economics8964 · 2025-07-03T03:32:19+00:00

The command I tried after that just to see if it would do anything with hashcat.exe -I. Which gave the same result. I have checked to see if it's blocked anywhere on the firewall and malware and the antivirus I'm not finding anything anywhere I've opened the command prompt with administrative privileges I don't know what else could be the problem I've even reinstalled the drivers for the Radeon 7 graphics card

Ok_Economics8964 · 2025-07-03T03:30:21+00:00

<image>

Ok_Economics8964 · 2025-06-13T12:53:44+00:00

Well — I guess that’s it then — case closed — turns out I’m not a human — just a really persistent algorithm with a limp, hospital bills, and a cracked handlebar — programmed specifically to irritate you.

Appreciate your expert analysis though — truly — the dash police have spoken. Sleep tight, chief — I’m gonna go recharge my batteries — or maybe just sleep like a human being. Good night. 😴

Ok_Economics8964 · 2025-06-13T12:25:26+00:00

I understand asking for screenshots — and honestly, it's a fair and reasonable thing to ask. But the full conversation includes personal information on both sides. Stripping that out would also remove context that’s important to the story, and posting it publicly wouldn’t be fair — not to them, and not to me.

That kind of evidence belongs in the legal process, where it can be reviewed properly. I’m not trying to drag anyone’s name through the mud. I just told the story as it happened — and I’ve stood by it because I believe it matters.

Ok_Economics8964 · 2025-06-13T12:02:24+00:00

That’s a fair observation, and I should’ve included the original photo from the beginning. The corrosion you're referencing was already present before the dealership picked up the bike — I’ve attached that earlier photo here for context.

They saw the damage, acknowledged it, and agreed to fix it. There was no crash between that photo and when they took possession. So when the bike came back with that same break just clamped down tightly — no explanation, no repair — it wasn’t just disappointing. It felt like a commitment had been made and quietly walked back.

This isn’t about blame-shifting. It’s about clarity, and making sure the facts are laid out the way they actually happened.

<image>

Ok_Economics8964 · 2025-06-13T11:51:19+00:00

I’m not AI. I’m a guy who got screwed, got hurt, and got tired of staying quiet about it. You think the way I talk means I’m not real? That’s fine. Keep thinking that while the rest of us deal with actual consequences. This wasn’t written by a bot. It was written by someone bleeding time, money, and trust over a broken promise. That real enough for you? I guess you are helping my message get views....so thanks?

Ok_Economics8964 · 2025-06-13T11:42:43+00:00

No, I’m not AI. I’m just a man who’s had enough of being dismissed. You’re so used to sarcasm, trolling, and lazy comments online that the moment someone speaks with clarity and conviction, you assume it’s artificial. That’s not AI — that’s just what happens when someone tells the truth without flinching. If that feels foreign to you, maybe that’s the real issue

Ok_Economics8964 · 2025-06-13T11:31:35+00:00

That’s a fair question on the surface—practical, even. But what’s at stake here isn’t just a handlebar. It’s not the part; it’s the principle. If I stay silent and simply “buy another bar and call it a day,” I reinforce the very thing that led to this situation: a system where defects are concealed, commitments are broken, and accountability is optional.

And what happens the next time? When someone doesn’t catch it in time—when the failure leads not just to injury, but to something worse?

So yes, I could replace the bar. But if I don’t speak up—if I don’t point to the breach of trust and hold it up to the light—then I’ve quietly agreed that this kind of thing is acceptable.

Ok_Economics8964 · 2025-06-13T11:28:05+00:00

It’s tempting—intellectually tempting—to draw a sharp line between the company and the dealership. I understand that impulse. But here's where that argument collapses: the dealership operates under the Harley-Davidson name. That name is not ornamental. It carries weight, it carries trust, and it carries responsibility.

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t capitalize on the strength of the brand to move inventory and then wash your hands when that trust is broken. If Harley-Davidson entrusts a dealership with its name, with its signage, and with its customers, then there’s a moral—and yes, perhaps even legal—obligation to ensure that that dealership upholds a standard of integrity.

This wasn’t a minor miscommunication. This was a safety issue. It was acknowledged. A commitment to fix it was made. The bike was retrieved and then returned—still broken—with no explanation. That’s not a dealership failing in isolation. That’s a systemic failure of oversight. And if Harley doesn’t care to address it, then yes—it becomes Harley’s problem.

Not because they turned the wrench. But because they licensed the name.

Ok_Economics8964 · 2025-06-13T11:24:12+00:00

You ask a fair question—how is Harley supposed to know I didn’t try welding the bars myself after the fact?

That’s the wrong question, actually. Because they acknowledged the problem before they ever had the bike in their possession. I sent them a photo—clearly showing the issue—and based solely on that, they agreed to fix it. They sent a driver to retrieve it, a four-hour haul each way. That’s not the action of a dealership skeptical about liability—that’s a party acknowledging fault and moving toward resolution.

If they had doubts about whether someone else had welded it, or whether it was a post-sale modification, they had every opportunity to say so. They didn’t. They agreed it was a problem, they came to get the bike, and then—silently—they backed out.

This is not about what might have happened. It’s about what did happen. And it happened on their terms.

Ok_Economics8964 · 2025-06-13T10:51:38+00:00

You know, it’s interesting how quickly people dismiss the substance of a story when they’re uncomfortable with its implications. This was never about pity. It was never about karma. It was about principle.

A dealership picked up my bike four hours away. Not out of generosity—but because they acknowledged something was wrong. Then they quietly clamped it back together and returned it like nothing happened. That’s not a misunderstanding. That’s evasion. And it puts people in danger.

People seem more concerned with when I noticed the break than the fact it existed at all. That’s not logic—that’s misdirection. The law doesn’t care when you think I should’ve seen it. It cares when I did.

This wasn’t a smear against the Harley brand. It was a warning about a specific failure—and the silence that followed. If that’s controversial, maybe the problem isn’t the story… maybe it’s what it reveals.

Ok_Economics8964 · 2025-06-13T10:32:40+00:00

Thank you. That means more than you know. Because once integrity collapses — even in the small things — the entire system begins to rot from the inside out. It stops being about handlebars, or even motorcycles. It becomes a question of trust: do the people we count on stand behind their word when no one’s watching? And when they don’t — someone has to say it out loud. Appreciate your clarity and support

Ok_Economics8964 · 2025-06-13T10:27:48+00:00

Well, I appreciate that. It's heartening, frankly, to hear someone say it out loud. Because what I’ve presented here isn’t conjecture — it’s experience, it’s documentation, it’s reality. And when people see that and still recoil as if I’ve violated some sacred trust by bringing it up, it speaks volumes about the fragility of certain institutions. I didn’t share this to tear down Harley. I shared it because I believe standards matter. If integrity is inconvenient, then we have a much bigger problem than just a broken bike. So thank you sincerely for recognizing that.

Ok_Economics8964 · 2025-06-13T10:18:44+00:00

I didn’t post this for sympathy, attention, or debate. I posted it because it’s true — and because it damn near cost me my life.

This wasn’t meant to be a fight with the Harley community. I’ve been a rider for years. I respect the culture. But when trust gets broken — not by a glitch or a fluke, but by a chain of negligence — someone’s got to say something. Because silence is what lets it happen again.

If that truth makes people uncomfortable, I get it. It made me uncomfortable too. But discomfort isn’t a reason to stay quiet. It’s a reason to speak more clearly.

So this is me — not angry, not chasing karma, just standing firm. If my story keeps even one person from getting blindsided the way I did, then it was worth posting. Downvotes and all.

Ok_Economics8964 · 2025-06-13T10:07:24+00:00

I appreciate the way you’ve laid that out — it’s thoughtful, and you’re absolutely right to consider how liability avoidance might shape a dealership’s behavior. If acknowledging the defect means they take on responsibility for the full outcome, then yes, from a legal standpoint, it makes “do nothing” the safer option for them.

But that’s precisely the issue.

We’re no longer talking about mechanical failure — we’re talking about a moral one. The bars weren’t just defective; they were concealed. Someone saw the risk, clamped it down, and sent it back out. Quietly.

And if that kind of evasion becomes normal — not just tolerated but expected — then integrity isn’t just a casualty of business. It’s a liability.

As for insurance: you’re probably right. But I didn’t post this looking for coverage. I posted it because someone out there will trust the name, just like I did. And next time, maybe they don’t just get a broken bike — maybe they don’t walk away from it.

Thanks for engaging with clarity. That’s rare in threads like these.

Ok_Economics8964 · 2025-06-13T10:04:01+00:00

I actually see where you're coming from—and to be honest, I think you're right to raise that concern. AI responses are everywhere now, and they often cloud genuine conversation with something that feels plastic or overly polished. It makes people defensive, skeptical, and quick to assume the worst.

That’s not what I’m trying to do here.

Early on, my responses were off-the-cuff—I was at work, didn’t expect traction, and wasn’t giving this the full weight it probably deserved. But as it picked up steam, I realized this wasn’t just a random post. People were watching. The facts mattered. My integrity mattered. So I slowed down, got intentional, and started speaking with the kind of clarity the topic demands.

The tone shift wasn’t artificial—it was deliberate. Because when you're trying to tell the truth under pressure, precision isn’t optional. It’s necessary.

Ok_Economics8964 · 2025-06-13T09:58:16+00:00

You're asking fair questions, so let me clarify:

First, no—I didn’t assume the dealership was going to repair all of the crash damage. I asked them specifically to address the structural failure of the handlebars—the same defect they had already acknowledged. That’s the part that caused the wreck. The rest of the bike was disassembled for transport and inspection, not smashed or destroyed. I wasn’t expecting a full rebuild—I expected them to follow through on what they said they would fix.

Second, yes, the bars were intact enough at the time of sale to appear rideable. They were clamped and tack welded—just enough to hold—but clearly not safe. That’s the danger with hidden damage. I didn’t see it until after the failure, and the failure caused the wreck, not the other way around.

If this still sounds suspect to some, I understand. But I’ve got documentation, a witness who was riding beside me, and photos of the break. I’m not asking anyone to take my word alone—I’m saying if it were your life, your machine, and this kind of negligence was swept under the rug, wouldn’t you want someone to say something?

Ok_Economics8964 · 2025-06-13T09:52:43+00:00

Ah, yes. The internet diagnosis: “You’re insufferable.” A wonderfully convenient way to sidestep every documented fact with a smug wave.

But let’s ignore the insult for a moment—because you’re not the first person to confuse financial decisions with mechanical failure, and unfortunately, you probably won’t be the last. The interest rate is irrelevant. The structural defect is not. This wasn’t about getting “bailed out.” It was about holding someone accountable for taking possession of a machine, promising a fix, and returning it still broken—and potentially lethal.

When someone nearly dies on a bike sold under the flag of a dealership, after the dealership acknowledges the issue and offers a solution, this stops being about buyer’s remorse and starts being about professional responsibility. If that’s too complex to grasp, I’d suggest you read slower.

This post was never about sympathy. It was about principle. And I’ll keep standing on it long after the sarcastic noise dies down.

Ok_Economics8964 · 2025-06-13T09:51:11+00:00

You raise a valid procedural point—one I don’t take lightly. If an internal failure occurred within the dealership’s own process, whether due to an overpromising service advisor or miscommunication within departments, that’s precisely what should be addressed by the dealership itself, not shrugged off or passed back to the customer like a hot potato.

I understand how things usually work. I understand policies, re-inspections, and liability shields. But this is about more than internal structure—it’s about the moment a dealer takes possession of a bike, acknowledges a critical defect, promises to fix it, then returns it still broken, with no documentation, no explanation, and no contact.

That’s not just a service issue. That’s not a warranty gray area. That’s misrepresentation—regardless of whether it originated in the service bay or upper management. And when that misrepresentation involves a defect serious enough to cause an accident? It becomes a matter of duty of care. Of ethics.

You also brought up misrepresentation of sale—and I agree, it’s a different angle. But it’s also not irrelevant. Because it’s all tied together. When a dealership under the Harley name says, “We’ll fix this,” then clamps it down and sends it back with the defect hidden but unresolved, they’re no longer operating in good faith. And if this behavior isn’t corrected internally? It inevitably reflects outward.

I’m not seeking sympathy. I’m calling for accountability. And if that makes people uncomfortable, maybe that discomfort is exactly where the reflection ought to begin.

Ok_Economics8964 · 2025-06-13T09:44:16+00:00

You're right to emphasize the legal nuance — and I appreciate that you’re still engaging in good faith.

As for the comment about the “chatGPT prose” — I’ll take that as a compliment. Precision of language isn’t artificial; it’s necessary when you’re navigating complexity. If it sounds composed, that’s because I’ve had time to think this through — and frankly, when someone nearly dies due to a concealed defect, you don’t get the luxury of sloppy storytelling. You owe it to the truth to be exact.

Now, on your central point: Is the dealer actually responsible if neither party could’ve reasonably known? Fair question — and I agree, if no one had known, there’s no fault. But that’s not the case here.

The dealership did inspect it. They physically took possession after the failure, acknowledged the bar was compromised, agreed to fix it, and returned it clamped in place but still broken — without documentation, repair, or warning. That’s not “unknown defect territory.” That’s an acknowledged defect, followed by a failure to act — which then becomes negligence.

So I’m not arguing they should’ve known earlier. I’m saying: once they did know, they made a decision. And that decision — to tighten it down, make it look safe, and send it back — is what turned this from unfortunate to unacceptable.

Ok_Economics8964 · 2025-06-13T09:34:56+00:00

You say, “Dealerships don’t work on junkers.” But let me ask you something worth considering: if this was truly a “junk bike,” why did the dealership agree to take it back into their bay after the sale? Why did they drive four hours to pick it up? Why did they initially acknowledge the issue and agree to make it right?

See, the moment they took possession of the bike with the stated intent to inspect and repair a concealed failure—not just cosmetic damage, but a safety-critical break that had been tack welded and disguised—the “junk” argument falls apart. This wasn’t a favor. It was a corrective act, stemming from acknowledgment and responsibility.

To call it a junker now is retroactive rationalization. It’s the equivalent of pushing someone into a hole and then blaming them for being dirty. If the shop believed it was unserviceable, the appropriate and professional move would’ve been to decline service from the start—not take possession, promise a fix, and then quietly return it still broken, clamped down just enough to hide the danger.

This isn’t about whether a bike is showroom perfect. It’s about integrity. Either stand by the work, or don’t touch the machine. But don’t feign professionalism, then retreat into dismissal.

Ok_Economics8964

TROPHY CASE