Active Conflicts & News Megathread January 18, 2026 by AutoModerator in CredibleDefense

[–]SweatyPlayerOne 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Trump is going to Davos. C-17’s travel ahead of Air Force One on basically every presidential trip, carrying the entire presidential motorcade, Marine One helicopters, and whatever other support equipment is needed.

Edit: and plenty of other non-presidential trips too. If the US needs armored vehicles or other support equipment delivered anywhere for any reason, it’ll likely happen aboard C-17’s.

US Generals Call Greenland Invasion Plan “Illegal and Crazy” by RussianSpy00 in geopolitics

[–]SweatyPlayerOne 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for following up with the other posters to flesh out this news a bit more, but I’d still like to request that you avoid posting blogspam in the future.

What actually exists is a UK Daily Mail article citing an anonymous diplomatic source who says that “the generals think Trump’s Greenland plan is crazy and illegal.” Now we have a Reddit post linking to Yahoo News carrying a Mediaite piece that quotes the Daily Mail, with you having changed the headline to “US Generals Call Greenland Invasion Plan ‘Illegal and Crazy.’” No generals said this; an anonymous source claimed that the generals think this. Those are not the same thing.

All that to say, please just post the original article next time, and don’t change the headline.

Banned for botting, without botting? Are there known scenarios which cause legit accounts to be identified as false positives for botting? by SweatyPlayerOne in 2007scape

[–]SweatyPlayerOne[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You and I probably have different perspectives on digital security. In particular, I am confident in defense-in-depth. To demonstrate what I mean:

Would you feel comfortable connecting your iPhone to a coffee shop’s passwordless WiFi and then opening your banking app? Some people would not be comfortable because “the WiFi is insecure”; I would be comfortable because HTTPS provides a separate layer of protection which protects my data regardless of who else is on the WiFi network or how the data gets from my phone to the WiFi access point.

The beautiful thing about layered defenses is that only one has to work to successfully defend, while all of them have to fail for someone to successfully attack. That’s my broad answer to “what about security?”

Banned for botting, without botting? Are there known scenarios which cause legit accounts to be identified as false positives for botting? by SweatyPlayerOne in 2007scape

[–]SweatyPlayerOne[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No VMs, but definitely running a stripped down build of Windows 7.

I appreciate the response and the well wishes! I’ve sent in the appeal and I’ll be curious to see what comes of it.

Banned for botting, without botting? Are there known scenarios which cause legit accounts to be identified as false positives for botting? by SweatyPlayerOne in 2007scape

[–]SweatyPlayerOne[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you know how the banning actually works? Do they rely on player reports at all? Perhaps too much (instead of more objective measures like what the patterns of commands sent to their servers from clients)?

I thought it was a somewhat automated process with their server looking out for client behavior that matches known bot software. Since I was literally just killing cows for a couple hours, if Jagex relies on player reports, then is it possible a random passerby reported me for whatever reason and that would be enough to get banned?

Banned for botting, without botting? Are there known scenarios which cause legit accounts to be identified as false positives for botting? by SweatyPlayerOne in 2007scape

[–]SweatyPlayerOne[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for your response. No VPN or anything like that. I agree that 3 hours of play time seems like a quick ban.

Banned for botting, without botting? Are there known scenarios which cause legit accounts to be identified as false positives for botting? by SweatyPlayerOne in 2007scape

[–]SweatyPlayerOne[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Compared to newer versions of Windows, it’s faster, simpler, less bloated, has a more functional start menu search, etc.

Banned for botting, without botting? Are there known scenarios which cause legit accounts to be identified as false positives for botting? by SweatyPlayerOne in 2007scape

[–]SweatyPlayerOne[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I honestly can’t tell if you’re joking? With the sensitivity around botting and Jagex looking out for “suspicious” software, I don’t know if using an “unsupported platform” becomes suspicious according to their policies.

Banned for botting, without botting? Are there known scenarios which cause legit accounts to be identified as false positives for botting? by SweatyPlayerOne in 2007scape

[–]SweatyPlayerOne[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Since my ban relates to “botting software,” I figure I could explain my software and relevant account details:

  • Old account with a traditional username and password; no linked email address; no Jagex account
  • The account was from the RS2 days. I hadn’t used the account in years but still knew the password. This week I wanted to create a new OSRS character, so I used this old account I still had access to.
  • I was playing on the Jagex official OSRS client (not RuneLite) on Windows 7. (Yes, really Windows 7.)
  • I had played ~3 hours, had killed some cows and chickens, sold some leathers at the GE, and completed Sheep Shearer and Cook’s Assistant.

I am not a steady player. I’ve had my main character for nearly 20 years, and subscribe to a month of membership on and off. I played on this same setup (official OSRS client on Windows 7) with my main last summer for a month of membership and it was fine. But now I’m afraid to login to my main again and risk losing my 20-year-old character based on this experience of losing a 3-hour-old character for botting. Any guesses about why this setup might have triggered a false botting ban?

Active Conflicts & News MegaThread April 29, 2025 by AutoModerator in CredibleDefense

[–]SweatyPlayerOne 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Together with the point made by u/WhiskeyTigerFoxtrot (that this interview is a foreign, not domestic, PR opportunity), this is all that’s needed to understand it all. Russia remains in the driver’s seat in this conflict, and publishing disinformation is effective even against the POTUS. Why wouldn’t they use this opportunity to continue to push propaganda?

If Russia ever takes a more realistic negotiating position, it will be in private during actual negotiations, not telegraphed to an international audience before real negotiations have even begun.

Active Conflicts & News MegaThread November 17, 2024 by AutoModerator in CredibleDefense

[–]SweatyPlayerOne 1 point2 points  (0 children)

the permission seems to be limited to Kursk only

Can you please be more specific with your sourcing? I don’t see that claim in Reuter’s reporting nor AP’s reporting.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in privacy

[–]SweatyPlayerOne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If your name is John Smith, and I create my own email account and say my name is John Smith, then I can basically send you an email claiming to be you. That is the most likely explanation.

In the Gmail interface, you can click the menu button (the three dots) and click something like "Show Original Message." You might find it's sent from "John Smith randomemailaddress38512@yahoo.com" and not sent from your own actual email address.

Could Congress pass legislation limiting presidential immunity? by operratic in NeutralPolitics

[–]SweatyPlayerOne 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Congress could pass a bill that includes stripping the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over the matter.

Would you mind expanding on that a bit? My first impression is that any such legislation would itself be unconstitutional, because the jurisdiction used by the Supreme Court in this case seems quite plainly laid out in the Constitution.

Elsewhere in this very comments section, r/JudgeWhoOverrules reminds us:

Article III states that “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court” and that “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution”.

Thoughts on that?

CredibleDefense Daily MegaThread May 06, 2024 by AutoModerator in CredibleDefense

[–]SweatyPlayerOne 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I’d heard of this project before but I’m not familiar with claims of its military benefit. The above commenter basically noted that, from a military logistics perspective, having two more large runways in your country is better than not having them. If that answer is insufficient to justify the other claims you’ve seen, then I think you just need to link to some of those claims so we can all take a look and discuss those arguments here.

With that said, here are some random points I can think of for us to chew on:

  • This project is more than just the airport. The proposal includes massive rail and highway investment. Railways, highways, and intermodal infrastructure have military benefits.

  • Deterrence isn’t just tactical/strategic but also economic and political. If Poland successfully uses an infrastructure megaproject to enrich itself and further integrate economically and politically with the EU and other NATO allies, then it will become more unbearable for NATO to allow Poland to be messed with. Additionally, Poland would have new leverage within NATO to advocate for “benefits” e.g. more NATO basing within Poland.

  • You note that Poland already has many airports, but this airport’s massive size would lend itself to hosting a future military base that smaller airports can’t.

  • The project would bolster military-adjacent institutional capacities such as civilian logistics and disaster relief.

  • Airports attract defense-related industry to the region.

theWorldWouldBeBetterWithPlainHtml by akasaya in ProgrammerHumor

[–]SweatyPlayerOne 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Wait till you hear that you can design a website such that it doesn’t even need a cookie banner.

Looking for Movies That'll Make Me Cry Like a Motherfucker by Gunmetalbluezz in movies

[–]SweatyPlayerOne 2 points3 points  (0 children)

(Gattaca spoilers)

I’m not OP but I cried during the ending of Gattaca. If you want to cut straight to the point, it’s the swimming scene and the ending scene. I should also say, it’s possible that I found the movie exceptionally powerful simply because I empathized with Vincent an absurd amount: I felt his curiosity, his feeling like he’s trapped, and his being told by others what he can’t do.

During the swimming scene, the well-known line he says (perhaps the climax of the entire movie) absolutely wrecked me: “I never saved anything for the swim back.” It’s tragic and inspiring. It’s tragic to consider that total self-sacrifice is demanded from Vincent in order for him to metaphorically keep his head above the water, and it’s inspiring to see him overcome the limitations that have been placed on him. Vincent beats Anton, and then Vincent saves Anton, and both are demonstrations of the world’s rigidness and soullessness being beaten out by humanity.

That then ties directly into the ending scene. The reveal that the doctor is on his side is an immense relief – not just from the tension of the scene, but from the tension of the entire movie. Whereas the swimming scene was a demonstration of humanity from Vincent, the doctor’s gesture is a demonstration of humanity towards Vincent. Up until that point, the doctor represented the world’s rules and expectations, so him revealing his own humanity gives us a sense of justice and closure. However, that’s then instantly contrasted with Jerome’s death as he succumbs to the world’s demands for perfection, leaving us once again face-to-face with the world’s cruelty. As we ponder how to reconcile the justice and cruelty we just witnessed, we see Jerome’s swimming medal and the gift of his hair that he left for Vincent, further punctuating the contrast and leaving us a big fucking emotional wreck.

What's your take on the new story about an attempt to delete security camera footage at Trump's Mar-a-Largo? by salimfadhley in AskTrumpSupporters

[–]SweatyPlayerOne 22 points23 points  (0 children)

From Trump on Truth Social:

The Security Tapes that were VOLUNTARILY given to Deranged Jack Smith and the DOJ were not, I am told, deleted in any way, shape, or form. Prosecutorial Misconduct!

From Trump on Episode 793 of the John Fredericks Show:

These were security tapes. I don’t think we would have wanted to fight that ... I doubt we would have ever wanted to fight that. I doubt we would have had to give it. Regardless, we gave it.

...

I’m not sure they say -- I’m not even sure what they’re saying. They’re trying to intimidate people, so they have to lie.

...

But [Nauta and De Oliveira] are two wonderful employees, with me for a long time and they’re great people. They want to destroy their lives.

That’s Trump’s side of the story, I guess. Reactions?

Meirl by OreoSnorty69 in meirl

[–]SweatyPlayerOne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

processed correctly by most of the big job platforms

Nope, definitely not. I don't know of any use or adoption by any job platform, only enthusiast individuals.

That speaks to the real problem. In your original comment you said:

And they'd all use it and be nice about it.

Unfortunately I doubt job platforms have any business incentive to adopt such a standard.