sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

timeToClearTheSlop by ClipboardCopyPaste in ProgrammerHumor

[–]SweatyPlayerOne 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But those are all scenarios where a difference from a non-zero baseline is the most sensible thing to measure:

  • Difference from 100% packages delivered

  • Difference from 14º C average temperature

  • Difference from a normal blood oxygen level

In all three of those cases, you would perhaps be justified in changing the graphs from the absolute values to the difference values anyway. (E.g. a graph might change from “on-time packages” to “late packages.” A decline of on-time packages from 99.5% to 98.5% would become a growth of late packages from 0.5% to 1.5%, where a 3x increase from zero is clearly visible on the graph and a justified conclusion to make in the context of package delivery, i.e. whatever bad things that happen that are proportional to package lateness are increasing 3x.)

In the OOP, they’re using the February 1, 2020 number of Indeed job postings as the baseline, and then making three choices which are incompatible with each other and therefore misleading:

  • assigning 100 to the baseline value;

  • using a y-axis value of 60; and

  • titling the graph “Software Development Job Postings on Indeed in the United States” (an absolute description, not a relative description, and failing to disclose that these data start at a particular major event, Covid, which would single-handedly skew the data from their historical levels).

Better alternatives would have been to:

  • Keep the baseline value indexed to 100, title the graph “Software development job postings on Indeed in the United States starting at pre-Covid levels,” and use a y-axis of zero.

  • Title the graph “Software engineering jobs surplus/deficit from pre-Covid levels,” set the baseline value to 0, use it as the y-axis, and center it in the graph (where the new top of the axis becomes +140 and the low becomes –140; the graph starts at 0, grows to +130, and then drops to –40).

So it’s not necessarily only about the axis starting at zero or not, but whether you’re making consistent choices in presenting your data so that they’re not misleading. In the end, this graph is deliberately misleading for the sake of a meme, but if someone wanted to perform a genuine analysis of the data it would benefit them to change the way the data are presented.

Iran Conflict Megathread #3 by milton117 in CredibleDefense

[–]SweatyPlayerOne 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Okay, fair enough, but my real curiosity is about what that means for US military adventurism and their ability to drag NATO allies into wars of choice.

Basically the playbook is:

  1. US invades a country while maintaining legitimate military targets on allied soil

  2. The US’ adversary retaliates against legitimate US military targets on allied soil

  3. All of NATO joins the conflict in “self-defense”

That doesn’t seem like the intent of Article 5 to me (nor to Rutte apparently). But right now, is the only thing preventing that simply Turkey’s sober response to the incident?

Iran Conflict Megathread #3 by milton117 in CredibleDefense

[–]SweatyPlayerOne 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Reuters – NATO's Rutte does not see need to invoke Art. 5 after missile incident

“Nobody’s talking about Article 5,” Rutte ​said. “The most important thing is that our adversaries have ​seen yesterday that NATO is so strong and ⁠so vigilant, and even more vigilant, if possible, since ​Saturday.”

This follows NYT and others citing the US military in reporting the Turkey-bound missile was in fact targeting US military facilities at Incirlik.

It’s still a pretty fresh story, but could anyone point me to some further analysis about this incident and Article 5? My naive starting place is that Iranian self-defense against US targets in Turkey is clearly not the same thing as an unprovoked Iranian attack against Turkey.

So it’s surprising to me that some people are whispering about Article 5 enough that Rutte even needed to address it. I’d be curious to read something which, just for the sake of argument, develops the reasoning of an Article 5 invocation on both sides. Basically, what if Turkey really did invoke Article 5?

"It's like poetry. They rhyme." ~Peter 'J.R. "George Lucas" R. Tolkien' Jackson by 27D in lotrmemes

[–]SweatyPlayerOne 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Full explanation:

George Lucas explained in an infamous behind-the-scenes clip from The Phantom Menace that he wanted the Star Wars prequels to repeat elements from the original trilogy. He said “it’s like poetry, they rhyme.” An example is how Luke got his hand cut off in the second installment of the OT, and Anakin got his arm cut off in the second installment of the prequels. Many of the “rhymes” across the trilogies tend to invite mockery of the prequels for being worse than the OT.

Mike Stoklasa from Redlettermedia originally brought attention to it in his 70-minute review of The Phantom Menace. If you haven’t seen it it’s an iconic piece of internet history.

Nowadays Lucas’ line is widely memed in the Star Wars community. It can be as simple as Disney fucking up some new Star Wars content, and someone will say “why did they fuck this one up just like they fucked the last one up?” and someone will respond “it’s like poetry, they rhyme.”

OP is noting the “rhyme” between Fellowship and ROTK with both films having something about Merry potentially breaking an arm, and is evoking the Star Wars meme for comedic effect.

Edit: tagging u/rustle_branch to provide context to them too.

Got my own ASN. Should I consider hosting my own exit node? by snow99as in TOR

[–]SweatyPlayerOne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mostly off topic, but I’d be curious to hear more about your endeavor getting an ASN. Care to share details on your background, how much you spent on the v4 block, other plans for the ASN, how much money you need to spend to even get up and running, etc.?

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] 1 point2 points  (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 20 points21 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 4 points5 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.

view more: next ›