Never buy a .online domain

Post by rtsam » Thu, Feb 26, 2026, 4:13 PM UTC

otterley wrote: post #477

rtsam wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I added the quotes, it clearly was not taken directly word for word and it was written in plain English for clarity. Perhaps spend less time picking apart comments and trolling on the internet if you do not know the definitions of words? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abet 1 : to actively second and encourage (something, such as an activity or plan) abet the commission of a crime 2 : to assist or support…

> I added the quotes, it clearly was not taken directly word for word and it was written in plain English for clarity. You mean you had an LLM write it. This is the second time you’ve done that in this conversation. Please stop. It’s giving you incorrect or misleading information. Bona fide lawyers are finding themselves subject to disciplinary action for relying on LLMs, which have been found to falsify law and case…

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Feb 26, 2026, 5:31 PM UTC

pocksuppet wrote: post #479

otterley wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article headline says “investigated,” not “punished.”

The investigation consisted of the police busting into their house and stealing all of their electronic devices, which is a punishment.

Post by pocksuppet » Thu, Feb 26, 2026, 5:45 PM UTC

otterley wrote: post #484

pocksuppet wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The investigation consisted of the police busting into their house and stealing all of their electronic devices, which is a punishment.

Securing physical evidence subject to a warrant is not punishment under the law. But I take your point that this seems like a pretty heavy-handed reaction.

Post by avipars » Thu, Feb 26, 2026, 6:37 PM UTC

Post by justsomehnguy » Thu, Feb 26, 2026, 7:03 PM UTC

akoboldfrying wrote: post #422

MereInterest wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Oh man. The infinite loops of impossible verification by large companies that should know better are massive pain peeve of mine. I got hit by this from google. 1. Gmail added requirement for 2FA on my primary email address. Since I had no phone number on file, it instead used my recovery email address. Thankfully, I still had the password for my recovery email address, and could continue to (2). 2. Gmail added requ…

> Fundamentally, this was google's fault for misusing a recovery email for 2FA. While this would absolutely suck and I sympathise with anyone getting hit by this out of the blue, it's pretty clearly your fault, not Google's. What should they have done? Just permit everyone to avoid upgrading to 2FA indefinitely? That would result in relatively more account hacks overall, for which they would inevitably be roasted in…