Search
405 results for “SecondThought”
-
7 foods Indian grandparents ate regularly that are suddenly trendy again
For years, many of the foods Indian grandparents cooked and ate without a second thought were brushed aside …
#dining #cooking #diet #food #Cooking #ancestraleating #CookingTopics #Curdbenefits #fermentedfoods #healthbenefitsofghee #IndianFoods #Jaggery #Makhana #Millet #traditionalIndiancuisine #trendingfoods
https://www.diningandcooking.com/2643478/7-foods-indian-grandparents-ate-regularly-that-are-suddenly-trendy-again/ -
Just got done work and after tip out I’m walking with ~$130. My first thought was “oh man killer night!, best I’ve had in a while!” And then my second thought was how sad that < $150 is my current definition of a “killer night.” Oh well. It’s only for the summer and then we rebid our shifts
#bartender #RestaurantLife #ServiceIndustry #OrganizeTheServiceIndustry :commie_peek:
-
"Do you have any idea how fast you were flowing?"
"Sir, your vehicle is emitting an excessive amount of smoke. And rock. And fire."
"Turn off the engine, please. The big, fiery one in the mountain."
"Could you pop the hood for me?
...On second thought, please, absolutely do NOT pop the hood.""Your vehicle is not up to code. Specifically, any code. For anything. Ever."
-
On second thought, maybe I should have it promote me and THEN delete its database. 🤔 #OrderOfOperations
#SingularityHack #HackTheSingularity #HackComedy #TheOnlyWayToPlayIsNotToWin #IJustLostTheGame
-
So I finally read what cheedolini said about #Reiner (may they rest in peace)
And my first thought is it's exactly what he says about every actor that doesn't like him not talented etc
I might have missed some of it because I just read an article not any of the posts, but if I got all of it, my first thought is yeah of course it's horrible but that's what we expect from him
My second thought is that he is getting the push back like this not just because it was inappropriate, he's made all sorts of inappropriate things this might be slightly over the line, compared to what he normally does, but the reason that the pushback is happening is because people are sick of it and his schtick is past it's shelf life
-
@BigG ROTFLMAO
You know, that was my second thought.
🧠 "This is George again, isn't it? He's posting pictures of things and trying to convince me they're not what they actually are!"
-
While I'm on the topic of things that are great...
The Orbea Vibe H10 EQ is, IMO, a great ebike for commuting. The integrated lighting, included mudguards and included pannier rack make it commute-ready out of the box, but it still looks good and not overly ebike-y.
Ortlieb Back-Roller Classic pannier bags are still the best. So quick and easy to get them on and off the bike, no movement or rattling once they're on the bike, and completely waterproof.
Finally something that most people wouldn't give a second thought, my bike bell. It's a Knog Oi Prima, and it's fantastic. Really loud so it doesn't go unnoticed, but it's still a pleasant sound so it doesn't come across as aggressive (unless you hammer away at it). Perfect if you do much cycling on shared used paths, and regularly need to give pedestrians a courtesy ding or two to warn of your approach.
-
A quotation from Randall, J. G.:
«««««
Tact is not one thing only. It is a number of qualities working together: insight into the nature of men, sympathy, self control, a knack of inducing self control in others, avoidance of human blundering, readiness to give the immediate situation an understanding mind and a second thought. Tact is not only kindness, but kin…
»»»»»Full quote, sourcing, notes:
https://wist.info/randall-j-g/60914/ -
CW: Ranty note on Mozilla and image formats
Just in case a year of silence has not made that obvious, Mozilla has now officially announced their position on the JPEG XL format as ‘neutral’.
The same organisation that once went to great lengths to demonstrate that JPEG was good enough and adding WebP really wasn’t worth it, now (seemingly without a second thought) adds support for yet another video-based codec, AVIF, and all they have to say on the much requested JPEG XL is… ‘meh, not impressed’, basically. No elaboration on what exactly would impress them, or what they found so impressive about AVIF. (Please let me know if you have seen any.)
The GNU project has been criticised for standing by their values but doing little to advance them. Mozilla seems to be doing the opposite: dropping some of them as they advance… to the bottom of the market share chart. I really hope they can climb back on their feet.
#lang_en #avif #firefox #image_formats #jpegxl #jpeg_xl #mozilla #software #technology :firefox:
-
7 foods Indian grandparents ate regularly that are suddenly trendy again
For years, many of the foods Indian grandparents cooked and ate without a second thought were brushed aside …
#dining #cooking #diet #food #Cooking #ancestraleating #CookingTopics #Curdbenefits #fermentedfoods #healthbenefitsofghee #IndianFoods #Jaggery #Makhana #Millet #traditionalIndiancuisine #trendingfoods
https://www.diningandcooking.com/2643478/7-foods-indian-grandparents-ate-regularly-that-are-suddenly-trendy-again/ -
7 foods Indian grandparents ate regularly that are suddenly trendy again
For years, many of the foods Indian grandparents cooked and ate without a second thought were brushed aside …
#dining #cooking #diet #food #Cooking #ancestraleating #CookingTopics #Curdbenefits #fermentedfoods #healthbenefitsofghee #IndianFoods #Jaggery #Makhana #Millet #traditionalIndiancuisine #trendingfoods
https://www.diningandcooking.com/2643478/7-foods-indian-grandparents-ate-regularly-that-are-suddenly-trendy-again/ -
7 foods Indian grandparents ate regularly that are suddenly trendy again
For years, many of the foods Indian grandparents cooked and ate without a second thought were brushed aside …
#dining #cooking #diet #food #Cooking #ancestraleating #CookingTopics #Curdbenefits #fermentedfoods #healthbenefitsofghee #IndianFoods #Jaggery #Makhana #Millet #traditionalIndiancuisine #trendingfoods
https://www.diningandcooking.com/2643478/7-foods-indian-grandparents-ate-regularly-that-are-suddenly-trendy-again/ -
Trump admits he lost the 2020 presidential election www.youtube.com/watch?v=Beg9... PASS IT ON! On second thought, share with all those pardoned, they went to JAIL FOR NOTHING. #AOC #HouseDemWomen #digby56 #RepRaskin #Reptedlieu #RepKatiePorter #RepSwalwell #IlhanMN #RepJeffries #RepSherrill
RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:un2wz6flbvv2v53k2ifkrdcg/post/3lgj2os3rnc2o -
On second thought, maybe I shouldn't abbreviate "CrowdSec Manager" in my self-hosting setup...
-
Daily writing prompt Who was your most influential teacher? Why? View all responsesJust yesterday my friend Larry sent me a text asking if I remembered the names of any of our high school teachers. My first thought was of course I do. My second thought was me trying to remember them and exactly one came to me. My senior year English teacher. Was she influential? She was brutal. Easily one of the toughest teachers I ever had. She kicked our academic asses on a daily basis and I was able to rise to the occasion. My grades in that class were very good. Unfortunately she was the only name I could remember off the top of my head. Mrs Acone.
Larry was specifically asking about our ninth grade Earth Science teacher. Somehow, magically, I was able to come up with it. Now, the very next morning, we get this question? Are the internets reading my mind again? Is this some X-Files level shit here?
Most influential teacher… okay… Mrs Acone is on the short list. Mrs Adams is too. I was in third grade. I was in the second highest reading group in the class. Mrs Adams, for some reason I am not aware of, bumped me up to the highest level reading group. A little bit of faith in a little tiny me and next thing we know I am an A student all the way into my high school career. Well… in every class except math. My math skills went south at some point, but other than that I was at the start of a very good public education career.
One other candidate for most influential requires me to fast forward all the way to my last time around in college. Dr Canning was my Computing I professor. He asked me for my resume one day. At the time it included a mention of attending Northeast Broadcasting School. He jumped on that and offered me a job in a lab he ran. I wouldn’t be doing anything code based in that lab. Instead he wanted me to start a Computer Science department focused talk show on the campus radio station. I took the job. The result was not only a radio show that ran for the next three years or so, it was that I had a peer group in school that I could study with, and a private, locked door lab space where we could meet to study. It was the key to me finishing my Bachelors Degree with some really excellent grades.
So there are a few influential teachers from my very distant past. There are probably a few more I could add but, as implied by the start of this post, I might not remember any of their names.
-
Daily writing prompt Who was your most influential teacher? Why? View all responsesJust yesterday my friend Larry sent me a text asking if I remembered the names of any of our high school teachers. My first thought was of course I do. My second thought was me trying to remember them and exactly one came to me. My senior year English teacher. Was she influential? She was brutal. Easily one of the toughest teachers I ever had. She kicked our academic asses on a daily basis and I was able to rise to the occasion. My grades in that class were very good. Unfortunately she was the only name I could remember off the top of my head. Mrs Acone.
Larry was specifically asking about our ninth grade Earth Science teacher. Somehow, magically, I was able to come up with it. Now, the very next morning, we get this question? Are the internets reading my mind again? Is this some X-Files level shit here?
Most influential teacher… okay… Mrs Acone is on the short list. Mrs Adams is too. I was in third grade. I was in the second highest reading group in the class. Mrs Adams, for some reason I am not aware of, bumped me up to the highest level reading group. A little bit of faith in a little tiny me and next thing we know I am an A student all the way into my high school career. Well… in every class except math. My math skills went south at some point, but other than that I was at the start of a very good public education career.
One other candidate for most influential requires me to fast forward all the way to my last time around in college. Dr Canning was my Computing I professor. He asked me for my resume one day. At the time it included a mention of attending Northeast Broadcasting School. He jumped on that and offered me a job in a lab he ran. I wouldn’t be doing anything code based in that lab. Instead he wanted me to start a Computer Science department focused talk show on the campus radio station. I took the job. The result was not only a radio show that ran for the next three years or so, it was that I had a peer group in school that I could study with, and a private, locked door lab space where we could meet to study. It was the key to me finishing my Bachelors Degree with some really excellent grades.
So there are a few influential teachers from my very distant past. There are probably a few more I could add but, as implied by the start of this post, I might not remember any of their names.
https://robertjames1971.blog/2024/03/22/teachers-2/
#dailyPrompt #dailyprompt #dailyprompt1885 #influential #school #teacher #teachers
-
Daily writing prompt Who was your most influential teacher? Why? View all responsesJust yesterday my friend Larry sent me a text asking if I remembered the names of any of our high school teachers. My first thought was of course I do. My second thought was me trying to remember them and exactly one came to me. My senior year English teacher. Was she influential? She was brutal. Easily one of the toughest teachers I ever had. She kicked our academic asses on a daily basis and I was able to rise to the occasion. My grades in that class were very good. Unfortunately she was the only name I could remember off the top of my head. Mrs Acone.
Larry was specifically asking about our ninth grade Earth Science teacher. Somehow, magically, I was able to come up with it. Now, the very next morning, we get this question? Are the internets reading my mind again? Is this some X-Files level shit here?
Most influential teacher… okay… Mrs Acone is on the short list. Mrs Adams is too. I was in third grade. I was in the second highest reading group in the class. Mrs Adams, for some reason I am not aware of, bumped me up to the highest level reading group. A little bit of faith in a little tiny me and next thing we know I am an A student all the way into my high school career. Well… in every class except math. My math skills went south at some point, but other than that I was at the start of a very good public education career.
One other candidate for most influential requires me to fast forward all the way to my last time around in college. Dr Canning was my Computing I professor. He asked me for my resume one day. At the time it included a mention of attending Northeast Broadcasting School. He jumped on that and offered me a job in a lab he ran. I wouldn’t be doing anything code based in that lab. Instead he wanted me to start a Computer Science department focused talk show on the campus radio station. I took the job. The result was not only a radio show that ran for the next three years or so, it was that I had a peer group in school that I could study with, and a private, locked door lab space where we could meet to study. It was the key to me finishing my Bachelors Degree with some really excellent grades.
So there are a few influential teachers from my very distant past. There are probably a few more I could add but, as implied by the start of this post, I might not remember any of their names.
-
Daily writing prompt Who was your most influential teacher? Why? View all responsesJust yesterday my friend Larry sent me a text asking if I remembered the names of any of our high school teachers. My first thought was of course I do. My second thought was me trying to remember them and exactly one came to me. My senior year English teacher. Was she influential? She was brutal. Easily one of the toughest teachers I ever had. She kicked our academic asses on a daily basis and I was able to rise to the occasion. My grades in that class were very good. Unfortunately she was the only name I could remember off the top of my head. Mrs Acone.
Larry was specifically asking about our ninth grade Earth Science teacher. Somehow, magically, I was able to come up with it. Now, the very next morning, we get this question? Are the internets reading my mind again? Is this some X-Files level shit here?
Most influential teacher… okay… Mrs Acone is on the short list. Mrs Adams is too. I was in third grade. I was in the second highest reading group in the class. Mrs Adams, for some reason I am not aware of, bumped me up to the highest level reading group. A little bit of faith in a little tiny me and next thing we know I am an A student all the way into my high school career. Well… in every class except math. My math skills went south at some point, but other than that I was at the start of a very good public education career.
One other candidate for most influential requires me to fast forward all the way to my last time around in college. Dr Canning was my Computing I professor. He asked me for my resume one day. At the time it included a mention of attending Northeast Broadcasting School. He jumped on that and offered me a job in a lab he ran. I wouldn’t be doing anything code based in that lab. Instead he wanted me to start a Computer Science department focused talk show on the campus radio station. I took the job. The result was not only a radio show that ran for the next three years or so, it was that I had a peer group in school that I could study with, and a private, locked door lab space where we could meet to study. It was the key to me finishing my Bachelors Degree with some really excellent grades.
So there are a few influential teachers from my very distant past. There are probably a few more I could add but, as implied by the start of this post, I might not remember any of their names.
https://robertjames1971.blog/2024/03/22/teachers-2/
#dailyPrompt #dailyprompt #dailyprompt1885 #influential #school #teacher #teachers
-
Daily writing prompt Who was your most influential teacher? Why? View all responsesJust yesterday my friend Larry sent me a text asking if I remembered the names of any of our high school teachers. My first thought was of course I do. My second thought was me trying to remember them and exactly one came to me. My senior year English teacher. Was she influential? She was brutal. Easily one of the toughest teachers I ever had. She kicked our academic asses on a daily basis and I was able to rise to the occasion. My grades in that class were very good. Unfortunately she was the only name I could remember off the top of my head. Mrs Acone.
Larry was specifically asking about our ninth grade Earth Science teacher. Somehow, magically, I was able to come up with it. Now, the very next morning, we get this question? Are the internets reading my mind again? Is this some X-Files level shit here?
Most influential teacher… okay… Mrs Acone is on the short list. Mrs Adams is too. I was in third grade. I was in the second highest reading group in the class. Mrs Adams, for some reason I am not aware of, bumped me up to the highest level reading group. A little bit of faith in a little tiny me and next thing we know I am an A student all the way into my high school career. Well… in every class except math. My math skills went south at some point, but other than that I was at the start of a very good public education career.
One other candidate for most influential requires me to fast forward all the way to my last time around in college. Dr Canning was my Computing I professor. He asked me for my resume one day. At the time it included a mention of attending Northeast Broadcasting School. He jumped on that and offered me a job in a lab he ran. I wouldn’t be doing anything code based in that lab. Instead he wanted me to start a Computer Science department focused talk show on the campus radio station. I took the job. The result was not only a radio show that ran for the next three years or so, it was that I had a peer group in school that I could study with, and a private, locked door lab space where we could meet to study. It was the key to me finishing my Bachelors Degree with some really excellent grades.
So there are a few influential teachers from my very distant past. There are probably a few more I could add but, as implied by the start of this post, I might not remember any of their names.
https://robertjames1971.blog/2024/03/22/teachers-2/
#dailyPrompt #dailyprompt #dailyprompt1885 #influential #school #teacher #teachers
-
Canadian #Fediverse activists! Listen to and share Senator Paula Simons @Paulatics's excellent CBC interview on the Jan 8, 2026 edition of As it Happens!
"Mark Carney is paying me for my Sober Second Thought: So here it is: Why are you giving the imprimatur of your Government to this website?”
So many great words said!!
Her segment begins at 27:10.
https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-2-as-it-happens/clip/16191007-a-minneapolis-protester-dangers-opposing-ice
#Fediverse #Mastodon #CBC #Twitter #TwitterMigration #EndMusk #Grok -
A.I. is now in control of all things. (Yours truly : Reddit)
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q75BUg1epU?version=3&rel=0&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&fs=1&hl=en&autohide=2&wmode=transparent&w=736&h=414]I’m ‘a gonn’a learn Reddit somm’a grammar and then somm’a forensic linguistics!
I reckon if you folks can’t figure that the Zodiac disguised his handwriting, then y’all best jus’ go on an’a git!
Eco on Echo Chambers
MEME: When you come face-to-face with the realization and subsequent existential dread of having had a virtual (!) close-encounter with a horde of yobbos spawned from Woodstock ’99
Like their M&D, they still doin’ it for the nookie! (but evidently frustrated they ain’t gettin’ any).
I may expound upon the following draft points and additional ones, so be sure to check back!- Infinite Monkey Theorem irony in all the tap-tap-tapping, giddy-up, giddy-up, gish gallop, gish gallop, click-click-clicking out of words (hourly/daily) from these nameless keyboard Forensic Files Reddit warriors and holy sh*!, they can’t even see that the linguistic comparison of sequential lines between Allen and the Zodiac is very possibly not by chance – especially considering the limited linguistic corpus (read: non-boilerplate / non-form letter samples) available from Allen!
Furthermore, in this example [Exhibit 9.0b], both Allen and the Zodiac are using the phrases “just pick up the kid” | “pick off the kiddies” with a parallel contextual tone as if the kid / kiddies are an afterthought, like baggage (and written only seven years apart). And don’t forget the ‘+’ sign that one noodle-brain redditor claimed I was using as my only rationale. Another slick we-don’t-need-no-stinkin’-sentence-diagramming redditor made up his own sample to challenge my exhibit, but in which he changed the noun kid to a verb. LOL! If he hadn’t done that and let’s presume, ceteris paribus, his hypothetical sentence was coming from the # 1 Zodiac killer suspect, then YES – it too would be worth linguistically considering! What’s up doc? Where do you catch-22 all these Ca’nyuk Nyuks from! Eh? - Note to these redditors: Just because it’s 2024 and you tap-tap-tap . . . gish gallop . . . gish gallop . . . giddy-up . . . giddy-up . . . durp-durp-durp. . . your bully-boy/girl/tweener sophistic prattle minute-by-minute, it doesn’t alter the fact that while my linguistic samples don’t prove (on their own) that Allen was the Zodiac [never said that they did, but do check out my other ample original research 😉 ] there is more weight to the comparisons of similar strings of diction and phraseology between both authors based on the limited amount of writings evidenced in the first place. Holy cow, you morons – you don’t even need to wait for the Forensic Linguistics departments to weigh in on that obvious fact. In other words, yes indeed there is something here non-“cherry-picked” and worthy of the professional linguists examining.
- Having to repeat AT LEAST HALF A DOZEN TIMES (count them; EDIT: +1) in the same thread that I am researching forensic linguistics, NOT handwriting OR graphology. The sad thing is they weren’t even trying to punk or troll the O.P. on that! Their attention spans, focus, and reading comprehension are that bad. But hey, Reddit is perfectly suited for the Kool-Aid kid ADHD crowd. Do they ever go back and check out—perchance to correct and learn—the dumbest things they typed in a thread before that thread is banished to the Memory Hole while the same topic is regurgitated yet again, the following week? ¡¿Oye como va, Santayana?!
- If you are unaware that the Zodiac killer changed his handwriting style in numerous letters he authored (look them up), which are widely accepted – if not fully authenticated by Law Enforcement – then you’ve got your homework, but please refrain from judging my research, which clearly, you are not qualified to do.
- The r/ZodiacKiller redditors revel in pushing prove-a-negative defenses to their allegations about a person’s research on a particular suspect:
The only reason that someone would investigate Arthur Leigh Allen now is because of Graysmith, his book, the movie; he was the most popular suspect . . . Today, there’s nothing worth an amateur investigating on Allen that a pro investigator wouldn’t have already discovered. What’s more . . . If your research findings dare to implicate a main suspect (Arthur Leigh Allen) then, that alone is proof that you are begging the question – petitio principii – from conclusion to evidence! [See the accusers’ recursive hypocrisy there? :-p Reddit indulges particularly in this logical fallacy.]
These are actual beliefs repeated – unchallenged – on that sub by grousing knuckleheads who never had a creative or original thought, or considered hypothesis in their lives, and likely never will! Online Logic 101 isn’t one of their curriculum strengths either; and, good God! To think some of them will be going to the ballot boxes soon. (Btw, check out my Studebaker / Kaiser vehicle research as but one other of my original forensic examples). - Wait until I get to some of their own sample (il)logical arguments . . . 😉 Saved Reddit histories are a beautiful thing for the Big Men on Campus. I’m gonna make M&D so proud of their lil’ limp bizkits!
- RefrigeratorSolid379: “This demonstrates nothing. Absolutely nothing…..”
This is RefrigeratorSolid’s five-word knee-jerk reaction to my Reddit topic post. . . .1 - SeoliteLoungeMusic: “This looks a lot like the sort of fixation schizophrenics often suffer from: some detail that screams with significance in the sufferer’s mind, but they can’t explain why, at least not in a way that makes sense to normal people. …”
Oh, boy… have I found out a thing or two about SLiM shady . . . I can’t wait! I can’t wait! . . .2 - Glasdwarf: “Can I ask if your credentials and experience top that of the many handwriting experts and linguists who have ruled Allen out as the Zodiac? …”
Glasdwarf has made a total of three comments, all superficial, about the Zodiac killer on Reddit in the past twelve months . . .3
- RefrigeratorSolid379: “This demonstrates nothing. Absolutely nothing…..”
- The Reddit posts (and site-wide histories) demonstrate abundant examples of the phenomenon of Reddit wannabe (or failed bar) “defense lawyers” [♫ dun-dun! ♫] Special Arguendo & Eristic Unit. Contrast these with the commenters who have little-to-no real interest in the Zodiac killer case or true crime in general. They signed up to that echo chamber of arrogance and inanity on a whim months or years ago, but stopped by to unload negative karma and a five-or-less-word quip because they were having a bad day with mummy and/or daddy. Did somebody say ‘Eco’ chamber? Rather than constructive criticism, they habitually find the need to dispense invalidation. Chronically, there are the many who will forever follow the rump in front like woolly-headed sheeple with a down-vote. [See A.I. essay results from Harvard Business Review, Psychology Today, and Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication]
MEME: [In a voice and mannerism redolent of Restoration period fops, Lucien Callow and Fagan] Hello, I’m not a real solicitor, but I play one on Reddit. I am, however, a bona fide pseudo-intellectual. See, [points with closed Asian folding fan] it says so under my 50×50 pixel avatar featuring a real (!) photo of yours truly [Who does that?]. [In single deft motion of wrist, flicks fan open and begins fanning unctuous smiling face] Permit me to represent you and your fatherless child, M’lady.
- Please tell me the majority of them are fellow Americans . . . I have to believe . . . you see, I expect more from the Asians & Euros . . . (except for that one overweening German nitwit who called my example poor, but then – get this – proceeds like Herr Hypocrite to make a post elsewhere offering the most unoriginal, weakest dross on suspect Allen that we’ve witnessed alongside that r/ZodiacKiller sub’s daily, also-ran, fatuous, repetitive lists. He couldn’t even manage a low-bar vault; and I’m the one he’s nicking site graphics from! [Shhhhh… (in a whisper) I think he may be “Angry-German-Kid” all grown up and new keyboard.]
- The r/ZodiacKiller admin and mods are all too pleased to direct visitors to their prominently displayed sitewide rules of conduct, including dictums: “Subreddit for mature discussion” . . . “be nice,” while allowing rampant violations as long as their groups of mincing nancies do it in a passive-aggressive dialogue. By now this comprises premeditated, scripted open public phone calls between grrrlfriends – wink-wink, they’re not attacking the O.P. in O.P.’s own thread. Evidently, on an given day, this must fly over the head and multi-tasking abilities of one Canadian’s sensibilities when he’s averaging ~7 [edit: ~3 today!] visitors to his sub, like the German pole vaulter.
(Q: Are We Not Men? A: We Are Redditors!) - I thought my generation was hard on our teachers. I genuinely feel so sorry for their teachers.
- Additionally, there is a tendency for the maladjusted bully-boys to make sweeping declarations, fancying themselves speaking for the whole of Reddit (control & group validation issues?). Keep in mind that they are neither admin, nor mods, nor original poster, and hence, have no access to a specific thread’s comprehensive activity:
“This might surprise you. But most people here just want the case solved. And don’t care who the killer ends up being.”
“[W]e can ask no more.”
“No one is impressed with your post.”
“Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial ‘we.'” —Mark Twain
I genuinely feel so sorry for their counselors & therapists (the ones sadly, these pontificating know-it-alls will probably never see). [Get Charlie Brooker on the line! Boy, have I got a new Black Mirror script that just wrote itself!] - It speaks volumes as a sad commentary when a central forum aspiring to be an open clearinghouse for the exchange of facts and ideas on a true crime decides to direct visitors—via top-pinned post, no less—to a private members-only Discord. Doesn’t that defeat the purpose? Weeding out our embarrassing sandlot riffraff are we? I mean, why not. If a big problem on the main forum is a dearth of quality contribution, competent moderation and administration, hey, the solution must be to stretch human resources even thinner with redundant forums? 🤣
- I am aware of two distinguished [ 😀 ] r/ members who remain(ed) conspicuously absent from commenting in my Reddit subject post. One is obvious because it is, after all, the r/ZodiacKiller sub; the other member would be most keen on a Zodiac killer linguistics topic inextricably related to their own field of specialty.
I knew – actually, I’ve known well before the topic activity subsided – when the Reddit trolls (per character type & trait) refused to reciprocate my polite and constructive follow-up explanations and questions. They balked at expanding on their five-word sound/keyboard bites/bytes before being drawn via chronic ADHD impulses (incl. that unrequited nookie) to run off with trolling mates in toe. Off they go to the next random topic in the Reddit-sphere for a quick “karma” fix, like a daily self-affirmation boost of MMORPG first-person-shooter cosmetic self-esteem. Yes, I knew – that they remain ill-equipped on so many levels: from linguistics, to emotional maturity, to common decency in civil discourse to hold even a modicum of sensible opinion on my topic.
KNIGHTS: Charge!
[squeak squeak squeak]
KNIGHTS: Aaaaugh!, Aaaugh!, etc.
ARTHUR: Run away! Run away!
KNIGHTS: Run away! Run away!…
As to those two distinguished lurkers, specifically, I know why they stayed uncharacteristically out of the topic. It may seem like a safe choice hedge-bet, for now; but more on this . . . later. I keep all the receipts. 😉 - I made my most recent post there because someone I do not know had already started a topic about my work: Zodiac’s Last Puzzle . . . Allen’s Final Written Confession; generally well-received I might add.
- Shortly after I posted my own thread, a new topic popped up re: Allen and his wig that featured an image [with my own arrow graphic clearly visible] directly plucked from my WordPress site’s post: Facial Composites & Sketches, also displayed on my WP Home page. Go figure the cause and effect steps there, detective! 🔍🕵🏿🔎 Here, I thought German Internet & media (and the citizens they serve) were more serious than most countries about dodgy intellectual property behavior. 🤔
- My only previous activity years ago—and the reason I requested activation of my account in the first place (literally, to protect my work!)—involved having to file (a successful) complaint with Reddit central admins because a member took one of my original research mark-up images from my site, sliced off my attribution banner on the bottom, and then proceeded to re-post it as their own.
Suggestion for Reddit & Redditors: I have absolutely no desire to use any of your forums, so to paraphrase Will Smith (undoubtedly, one of your faves): Keep my WordPress research site out of your f—king mouths and off your f—king keyboards!
Moreover, if the plagiaristic attempts resume from a couple of years ago, at which time I remained diplomatic, I will file an immediate, formal, and official complaint and provide all history on the matter.
P.S. I keep all the receipts [and from Discord too. Peek-A-Boo! There are spies amongst you. Vee have vays! 🕵🏿♀️🕵️♂️🕵🏾♂️🕵️♀️]. 😉
https://youtu.be/04clpd7h0b0?si=Z-Jf7iERUpXr2pR2
The Emperor has no clothes!
(and Snoo is nude, too!)I’ve got a little list, I’ve got a little list,
of Reddit’s Finest:(Opera Slippers & Powdered Wigs)
- RefrigeratorSolid379: When asked, he refused to explain. [Did I mention those who feel threatened by further circumstantial evidence that may weigh against Allen?] His username has been around the r/ZodiacKiller for years. Could somebody inform me as to exactly what RefrigeratorSolid has brought to the table in all this time?
CLICK HERE to learn of his profound “one bit of proof” contribution to the Zodiac killer research community.
That’s right. According to RefrigeratorSolid, Graysmith is a demonstrable liar…. and thus, doubt is cast on Allen being the killer because when talking with a journalist in 2007, Robert Graysmith misremembered his reference to a secondary (or tertiary, etc.) hypothesis about the crime events on a calendar, and got the exact 1969 date for Columbus Day wrong.
I’d like to give this nameless troll credit for his forensic magnum opus to Reddit, but while he prizes his own work so highly that he remains anonymous, one must refer to him as RefrigeratorSolid379, which I believe is trucker CB slang for a poopsicle. Now, you mean to tell me there are at least 378 more of these lying on ground between rest stops over the length of Interstate 80?
“I am working on it.”
This unfounded statement (five words, again – wouldn’t you know!), RefrigeratorSolid has repeated several times whenever the post topic of Who is Currently Working the Zodiac Killer Investigation comes up. Unintentionally ironic? Clueless? Both? It doesn’t take long, nor an algorithm to deduce that he uses Reddit login alts (mostly non-members to r/ZodiacKiller) to inflate his positive karma points on his ridiculously banal comments. Admin, doc_daneeka and his mod (u/Mrs_Daneeka with “her” all-time grand total of one comment to the sub) remain blissfully ignorant to all this, of course.
YES, SENSEI !
↩︎ - SeoliteLoungeMusic: SLiM Shady is one of those r/ZodiacKiller redditors who attempts to exploit the aforementioned ADHD world of his and his peers. He stalks surreptitiously from the bushes until what he believes is just the right time to get his ad hominem zingers in – when he thinks a thread topic has been all but abandoned. [Not with me you don’t, bud. 😀 ] On average, judging by up/down voting, it’s patently clear that true crime redditors lose interest in any given thread topic after about the first parent post level. lol [insert animated gif image here of keys dangled in front of baby’s face.]
Lounge boy sure came in for a hard landing on my post; it makes you wonder if he has a bias against Allen, and in favor of another suspect? You think? Wonder no longer – check these out:
SLiM, when he’s not “fixated” on U.S. politics, is inclined to sadfish his mood disorders with Reddit therapy bots:
The Eminent Dr. SLiM evidently believes his suffering over-share somehow qualifies him to diagnose someone whom he neither knows nor has ever met—me (and my work)—as not within the realm of normality, even potentially “schizophrenic.” I see… well here’s a tip for Lounge boy: Do watch out for those cooking plates! [You know, like “normal people” would do.] On second thought, you may want to opt for a microwave, reassured with the knowledge that you are wearing your alum-in-I-um foil cap.
AGAIN! YES, SHIFU !
↩︎ - Glasdwarf: Tells us in one perfunctory comment that he’s watched the Fincher Zodiac film (his credentials and experience?), and in another – with nary a proof of critical thinking proffered – that, “It’s not him [Allen] 100%,” and “Not one of the known suspects is the Zodiac.” Really? To Glasdwarf: So where are your “facts”? Why bother wasting everyone’s time with disingenuous rhetorical questions when you already had your predetermined conclusion to drop a couple of lines later?:
“I do not believe that your theory holds any water and adds nothing to the debate other than self promotion that this post was clearly designed to do.”
You can believe whatever you want, but if you’re going to accuse me of self promotion (intended pejoratively as your post was clearly designed to do) you had best be prepared to back it up. By your reasoning, anyone who posts and is prepared to defend a forensic hypothesis online is guilty of “self-promotion.” What’s interesting is that there are monetized true crime self-promoters, tragedy profiteers to every degree (YouTube, Amazon book sales, or holiday cash grabs on original newsprint stories of dead victims, etc.) swirling about r/ZodiacKiller and other forums on a weekly basis – each with a different ‘suspect’ – and yet, our valiant social injustice warrior, Glasdwarf, combat(t)ing self-promotion at every turn is nowhere to be found!
I explained the obvious to Glasdwarf: I’m not selling any books, running any pod/webcasts; and I use a free WordPress site. Glasdwarf chose to answer not. He did make haste away, while yea! Brave, Sir BlackLionYard, Ponce de Reddit, stepped in with some prattling interference, permitting The not-so-brave, Glasdwarf time enough to scurry to his next pub meet or game of CODpieceWarzone.
Oh, and who are the “many linguists” you confidently assert have ruled Arthur Leigh Allen “out as the Zodiac”?
[EXT. SOF. The soft repetitive ticking sound of bog bush-crickets in Dumfries and Galloway]
AGAIN! YES, SIR TRAINSPOTTING ROD !
more to come. . . Oh there’s more, much, much, more . . .℠ 😀
↩︎
When you know the little men are second-guessing themselves, doing damage control, literally – hedging their bets:
They start the serial murder suspect oddsmaking posts. What should they care, anyway? It’s not as if they are stepping out from behind their anonymous I.D. masks to own their claims – or their cash. 😉 Talk is cheap; but in in 2025 it’ll get you “karma” on Reddit!
https://youtu.be/7hx4gdlfamo?si=eLfHgBV3TL1NPGox
You boys best start ‘a runnin’ . . . Real quick like.
© 2024 Robert P. Ackerman
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6t6k9tehlv4?version=3&rel=0&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&fs=1&hl=en&autohide=2&wmode=transparent&w=320&h=180]Related Posts
Other Blog Topics
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
Arthur Leigh Allen’s Lake Berryessa Map Sketch
2024: The Curious Case of the Year in The Zodiac Killer Research
#AI #allen #arthur #ArtificialIntelligence #bot #chatbot #diction #ForensicCriminology #grammar #handwriting #hooligan #hooliganism #horde #idiolect #lee #leigh #letters #linguistics #machineLearning #neuralNetwork #phraseology #primitive #Reddit #scrape #scraping #serialKiller #WebDataExtraction #WebHarvesting #WebScraping #word #ZodiacKiller - Infinite Monkey Theorem irony in all the tap-tap-tapping, giddy-up, giddy-up, gish gallop, gish gallop, click-click-clicking out of words (hourly/daily) from these nameless keyboard Forensic Files Reddit warriors and holy sh*!, they can’t even see that the linguistic comparison of sequential lines between Allen and the Zodiac is very possibly not by chance – especially considering the limited linguistic corpus (read: non-boilerplate / non-form letter samples) available from Allen!
-
Gonna dump a bunch of notes about my Black Butler AU I wrote back in 2023, just to have a backup:
-Like a lot of canon-divergent Kuro ideas I have, this is set in an alternate reality where all kinds of supernatural creatures coexist with humans.
-One of them is demons, there are different subspecies and not all of them eat souls. There was a time where all demons were feared and any human who was suspected of being in good terms with one became the target of a witch hunt. By the late 18th century, however, things have changed a lot.
-There has been an agreement or “code of honor” between soul-eating demons (commonly called Voids) and humans for centuries. Voids need human souls to survive, they cannot sustain themselves with anything else (it’s very rare for a demon to starve to death but they do become weak and vulnerable). Some of them are opportunists who roam in search of dying humans whose souls they can snatch before a reaper arrives. While others are more patient and prefer to cultivate a soul by forming a contract with someone who wishes to. Having your soul eaten is not the horrifying fate you may think it is: there’s no eternal torment, no hell, nothing. Just going to sleep never to wake up and becoming one with the demon. People accept this as another aspect of life. However, there’s one thing that’s unacceptable and it’s demons (unjustifiably) killing humans just for their souls, any demon who does this is considered a feral beast and will be hunted down (there are some methods to kill a demon for good). Even other demons look down on these individuals.
-The longer a human lives the more “nutritious” their soul is. Some Voids will form a contract with a human and serve them through all their life, and when it’s their time to go the person will willingly feed themself to the demon. Other demons even become familiars and stay in the same family for generations, swearing loyalty to the next person in line after they have absorbed their relative’s soul. People consider this an honor.
-Sebastian is a very refined demon who only consumes the highest quality souls after fulfilling a contract. The day RCiel is sacrificed is the first time someone actively summons him, as all this time he met all his contractees by chance. He eats the human sacrifice’s soul because why not, there’s a first time for everything. However, when he takes a look at all the cultists gathered excitedly looking at him he feels nothing but contempt and disgust, and slaughters them without second thought and without bothering to take their souls. They have the distinctive stench of someone who has done unspeakable things to an individual of their own species, especially to a youngling, and not even demons find these souls appetizing. So nobody would dare to judge him for disposing of them. After the fun bloodbath he senses a tiny presence nearby, and locates it in a cage in the center of the room. A small, frail human lays there, apparently dead, though he still feels their soul flickering inside. Upon closer inspection he notices it’s a young child that looks exactly like the owner of the soul he just devoured. “Ah, twins. How sad”. It doesn’t seem like this child will make it, but waiting until he finally dies goes against his aesthetic, and for some reason he can’t bring himself to either end his misery or leave him there. So he takes the unconscious child out of there, craddling him in his very demon essence, and just keeps him, like a person who has found a wet, dirty, barely alive tiny animal on the side of the road. Besides, if he manages to save the child and he goes on to live, they might make a contract and then he can claim his soul in the end. It could be a fun experiment right?
-From OCiel’s POV, the story starts off very similar to in canon: he still gets horribly tortured and abused. But since in this AU it all happens when he’s younger, his small body can’t take much and eventually he gets so sick and weak that he can’t even stand, and the cultists just leave him to die in the cage while they focus on the stronger RCiel. The day of the sacrifice he keeps slipping in and out of consciousness and can’t fully register or process what’s going on. Unable to tell dreams from reality, he suddenly feels a warm, almost velvety cloak that surrounds him. It’s very comforting and he clings to it with the little strength he has left.
#not-eli's-art #eli-rambles #kuroshitsuji #black-butler #au #canon-divergence #sebastian-michaelis #ciel-phantomhive #dadbastian #mombastian -
“Privacy is rarely lost in one fell swoop. It is usually eroded over time, little bits dissolving almost imperceptibly until we finally begin to notice how much is gone.”*…
… And now, indeed, we’re beginning to notice. Hana Lee Goldin surveys the state of play– who’s buying our personal information, what they’re using it for, and how the system works behind the screen– and considers our options…
Sometime in the mid-2000s, most of us started handing over pieces of ourselves to the internet without giving the exchange a second thought. We created email accounts, signed up for social media, bought things online, downloaded apps, swiped loyalty cards, connected fitness trackers, stored photos in the cloud, and agreed to terms of service that almost none of us have ever read in full. We did this thousands of times over two decades and counting, and each interaction felt small enough to be inconsequential.
But the accumulation is enormous. More than 6 billion people now use the internet, and each one makes an estimated 5,000 digital interactions per day. Most of those interactions happen without our conscious awareness: a GPS ping, a page load, an app opening, a browser cookie refreshing, a device checking in with a cell tower. The average person in 2010 made an estimated 298 digital interactions per day. In fifteen years, that number multiplied more than sixteenfold. Those digital interactions produce records that can persist indefinitely, stored, copied, indexed, bought, sold, and combined with other records to build profiles of extraordinary detail.
If we’ve been online since the late 1990s or early 2000s, our data footprint can include social media accounts we’ve created, online purchases we’ve made, forums we’ve posted in, loyalty cards we’ve used, and apps we’ve installed going back decades. Some of that information lives on platforms we’ve long forgotten. Some of it was collected by companies that have since been acquired or dissolved, with our data potentially passing to successor entities we’ve never heard of. The digital life most of us have been living for 15 to 25 years has produced a layered, evolving archive that only grows more valuable to the people who buy and sell it as time goes on.
Most of us sense that something is off about all of this. In a 2023 survey, Pew Research found that roughly eight in ten Americans feel they have little to no control over the data companies collect about them, 71% are concerned about government data use, and 67% say they understand little to nothing about what companies are doing with their personal information. The concern is real and widespread. And so is the feeling of helplessness: 60% of Americans believe it’s impossible to go through daily life without having their data tracked. The unease is there. What’s missing is a clear picture of what’s happening on the other side of the transaction…
[Goldin explains what data is being collected and shared, and by whom; how the data is managed and trafficked; how its being used (by insurance and financial companies, employers and landlords, retailers, AI companies, governments, and criminals); and how “inferred” data is used to augment the “hard” data. It’s chilling. She then puts the issue into context, and discusses we we can– and cannot– do about it…]
… The philosopher Helen Nissenbaum has a framework for what’s happening here: contextual integrity. The idea is that privacy isn’t about secrecy. We share information willingly all the time, when the context fits. We tell our doctor about a health condition because we expect that information to stay within the medical relationship. We search for symptoms on a health website because we assume that search won’t follow us into an insurance application. In the current data economy, that’s exactly the kind of boundary that dissolves, because the company collecting the data and the company buying it are operating in completely different contexts.
This is an information literacy problem as much as a privacy problem. Information literacy is usually framed around consumption: evaluating sources, questioning claims, recognizing bias in what we read and watch. But every time we interact with a digital service, we’re also producing information: generating a record that will be read, interpreted, scored, and acted on by organizations we may never interact with directly. Many of us have gotten better at questioning the information that comes at us: checking sources, noticing bias, and recognizing when something is trying to sell us a conclusion. But we haven’t developed equivalent habits around the information that flows from us: where it goes after we hand it over, who reads the record, what incentives they have, and what conclusions they draw. The gap between what we think we’re consenting to and what we’ve agreed to in practice is where the real exposure lives, and the system is designed to keep that gap invisible.
One of the reasons the “so what” question is hard to answer with action is that opting out of data collection often means opting out of participation. Declining a social media platform’s terms of service means not using the platform. Refusing location permissions can mean losing access to navigation, ride-sharing, weather, and delivery apps. Choosing not to create an account can mean paying more, seeing less, or being locked out of services that have become essential infrastructure for work, communication, healthcare, banking, and education.
The architecture of digital consent treats data sharing as a binary: agree to the terms or don’t use the product. There’s rarely a middle option that allows us to use a service while limiting what data gets collected and where it goes. The result is that the “choice” to share data often functions as a condition of entry into daily life rather than an informed negotiation. We’re not handing over data because we’ve weighed the tradeoff and decided it’s fair. We’re handing it over because the alternative is exclusion from services we rely on.
This is the structural context behind the Pew Research Center finding that more than half of Americans believe it’s impossible to go through daily life without being tracked. For many of us, it isn’t possible, at least not without significant inconvenience or sacrifice. The question isn’t whether we can avoid data collection entirely, because for the vast majority of people who participate in modern life, the answer is no. The question is whether we can make more informed decisions within the constraints we’re operating in, and whether the system can be pushed – through regulation, through market pressure, through better tools – toward something more transparent.
California’s Delete Act, which took effect in January 2026, is the strongest example of what’s emerging. It created a platform called DROP (Delete Request and Opt-Out Platform) that lets California residents submit a single deletion request to every registered data broker in the state. Brokers are required to process those requests, maintain suppression lists to prevent re-collection, and check the platform regularly for new requests. The European Union’s GDPR provides similar individual rights, and a handful of other U.S. states have enacted their own privacy laws with varying levels of protection. But the coverage is uneven: what’s available to a California or EU resident may not extend to someone in a state without comparable legislation.
Some services now automate parts of the opt-out process, submitting removal requests to dozens of brokers on our behalf. These can’t erase the data trail entirely, but they can narrow what’s actively available for sale.
Beyond deletion, there are smaller choices that reduce how much new data we generate. We can audit which apps have permission to track our location or access our contacts, since a surprising amount of behavioral data comes from apps that don’t need those permissions to function. We can treat “sign in with Google” and “sign in with Facebook” buttons as what they are: data-sharing agreements that can link a new service to an existing profile. And we can glance at the first few lines of a privacy policy before agreeing, looking for some version of “we may share your information with our partners,” where “partners” just means anyone willing to pay.
Most of us don’t read privacy policies, and the policies aren’t built to be read. They average thousands of words of dense legal language filled with terms like “legitimate interest,” “data processor,” and “de-identified data.” Studies consistently put them at a late high school to early college reading level (grade 12 to 14), but the difficulty goes beyond reading level: the concepts are abstract, the volume of agreements we encounter is enormous, and the design of the consent process itself pushes us through as fast as possible. Pre-checked boxes, auto-scrolling agreement windows, “accept all” buttons positioned prominently while “customize settings” options sit behind additional clicks. These are dark patterns, design choices that make the path of least resistance the path of maximum data sharing.
The result is a gap between the moment we share a piece of information and the moment that information shapes a decision about our lives. We don’t connect the app to the insurance premium or the loyalty card to the rental application because the chain of custody between them is long, complex, and designed to stay out of view.
The same critical thinking we’ve learned to apply to the information flowing toward us (checking sources, questioning claims, looking for bias) applies to the information flowing from us: who’s collecting this, what will they do with it, who else will see it, and what did we agree to? The difference is that in the data economy, we’re the product being evaluated, and the questions are being asked about us rather than by us.
So can we get it back? Not entirely. Data that’s already been collected, copied, sold, and processed across multiple systems can’t be fully recalled. What we can do is reduce what’s actively available for sale, slow the flow of new data going forward, and take advantage of legal tools that didn’t exist a few years ago. The archive of our past digital lives is too distributed to undo, but the file is still being written, and we have more say over the next page than we did over the last twenty years of them.
So what if they have our data? The tradeoff extends well beyond better ads. It reaches into the prices we’re charged, the credit we’re offered, the jobs we’re considered for, the insurance premiums we pay, the AI systems trained on our behavior, the accuracy of the profiles used to make decisions about our lives, and the degree to which government agencies can monitor our movements without a warrant. Every new service we sign up for, every permission we grant, and every terms-of-service agreement we accept adds another layer to that file. We can’t close the file entirely, but we can make more informed decisions about what goes into it next…
Eminently worth reading in full: “So What if They Have My Data?“
See also: “Why Do We Care So Much About Privacy?” (source of the image above) in which Louis Menand suggests that our concern should be with the “weaponization” of data…
* Daniel J. Solove, Nothing to Hide: The False Tradeoff Between Privacy and Security
###
As we reinforce our rights, we might recall that it was on this date in 1996 that the internet-as-we’ve-come-to-know-it broke big into the mainstream: Yahoo! launched the national campaign that asked “Do You Yahoo?” advertising its web-based search service on national television. The campaign was created by ad agency Black Rocket and Yahoo Marketing Head Karen Edwards (whose many awards for the work include a seat in the Advertising Hall of Achievement).
An early spot from the campaign…
https://youtu.be/X2_XzGPqBJ0?si=VxM6vlzcR89uDOKr
#advertising #culture #data #DoYouYahoo #history #KarenEdwards #personalData #politics #privacy #security #society #Technology #television #Yahoo -
“Privacy is rarely lost in one fell swoop. It is usually eroded over time, little bits dissolving almost imperceptibly until we finally begin to notice how much is gone.”*…
… And now, indeed, we’re beginning to notice. Hana Lee Goldin surveys the state of play– who’s buying our personal information, what they’re using it for, and how the system works behind the screen– and considers our options…
Sometime in the mid-2000s, most of us started handing over pieces of ourselves to the internet without giving the exchange a second thought. We created email accounts, signed up for social media, bought things online, downloaded apps, swiped loyalty cards, connected fitness trackers, stored photos in the cloud, and agreed to terms of service that almost none of us have ever read in full. We did this thousands of times over two decades and counting, and each interaction felt small enough to be inconsequential.
But the accumulation is enormous. More than 6 billion people now use the internet, and each one makes an estimated 5,000 digital interactions per day. Most of those interactions happen without our conscious awareness: a GPS ping, a page load, an app opening, a browser cookie refreshing, a device checking in with a cell tower. The average person in 2010 made an estimated 298 digital interactions per day. In fifteen years, that number multiplied more than sixteenfold. Those digital interactions produce records that can persist indefinitely, stored, copied, indexed, bought, sold, and combined with other records to build profiles of extraordinary detail.
If we’ve been online since the late 1990s or early 2000s, our data footprint can include social media accounts we’ve created, online purchases we’ve made, forums we’ve posted in, loyalty cards we’ve used, and apps we’ve installed going back decades. Some of that information lives on platforms we’ve long forgotten. Some of it was collected by companies that have since been acquired or dissolved, with our data potentially passing to successor entities we’ve never heard of. The digital life most of us have been living for 15 to 25 years has produced a layered, evolving archive that only grows more valuable to the people who buy and sell it as time goes on.
Most of us sense that something is off about all of this. In a 2023 survey, Pew Research found that roughly eight in ten Americans feel they have little to no control over the data companies collect about them, 71% are concerned about government data use, and 67% say they understand little to nothing about what companies are doing with their personal information. The concern is real and widespread. And so is the feeling of helplessness: 60% of Americans believe it’s impossible to go through daily life without having their data tracked. The unease is there. What’s missing is a clear picture of what’s happening on the other side of the transaction…
[Goldin explains what data is being collected and shared, and by whom; how the data is managed and trafficked; how its being used (by insurance and financial companies, employers and landlords, retailers, AI companies, governments, and criminals); and how “inferred” data is used to augment the “hard” data. It’s chilling. She then puts the issue into context, and discusses we we can– and cannot– do about it…]
… The philosopher Helen Nissenbaum has a framework for what’s happening here: contextual integrity. The idea is that privacy isn’t about secrecy. We share information willingly all the time, when the context fits. We tell our doctor about a health condition because we expect that information to stay within the medical relationship. We search for symptoms on a health website because we assume that search won’t follow us into an insurance application. In the current data economy, that’s exactly the kind of boundary that dissolves, because the company collecting the data and the company buying it are operating in completely different contexts.
This is an information literacy problem as much as a privacy problem. Information literacy is usually framed around consumption: evaluating sources, questioning claims, recognizing bias in what we read and watch. But every time we interact with a digital service, we’re also producing information: generating a record that will be read, interpreted, scored, and acted on by organizations we may never interact with directly. Many of us have gotten better at questioning the information that comes at us: checking sources, noticing bias, and recognizing when something is trying to sell us a conclusion. But we haven’t developed equivalent habits around the information that flows from us: where it goes after we hand it over, who reads the record, what incentives they have, and what conclusions they draw. The gap between what we think we’re consenting to and what we’ve agreed to in practice is where the real exposure lives, and the system is designed to keep that gap invisible.
One of the reasons the “so what” question is hard to answer with action is that opting out of data collection often means opting out of participation. Declining a social media platform’s terms of service means not using the platform. Refusing location permissions can mean losing access to navigation, ride-sharing, weather, and delivery apps. Choosing not to create an account can mean paying more, seeing less, or being locked out of services that have become essential infrastructure for work, communication, healthcare, banking, and education.
The architecture of digital consent treats data sharing as a binary: agree to the terms or don’t use the product. There’s rarely a middle option that allows us to use a service while limiting what data gets collected and where it goes. The result is that the “choice” to share data often functions as a condition of entry into daily life rather than an informed negotiation. We’re not handing over data because we’ve weighed the tradeoff and decided it’s fair. We’re handing it over because the alternative is exclusion from services we rely on.
This is the structural context behind the Pew Research Center finding that more than half of Americans believe it’s impossible to go through daily life without being tracked. For many of us, it isn’t possible, at least not without significant inconvenience or sacrifice. The question isn’t whether we can avoid data collection entirely, because for the vast majority of people who participate in modern life, the answer is no. The question is whether we can make more informed decisions within the constraints we’re operating in, and whether the system can be pushed – through regulation, through market pressure, through better tools – toward something more transparent.
California’s Delete Act, which took effect in January 2026, is the strongest example of what’s emerging. It created a platform called DROP (Delete Request and Opt-Out Platform) that lets California residents submit a single deletion request to every registered data broker in the state. Brokers are required to process those requests, maintain suppression lists to prevent re-collection, and check the platform regularly for new requests. The European Union’s GDPR provides similar individual rights, and a handful of other U.S. states have enacted their own privacy laws with varying levels of protection. But the coverage is uneven: what’s available to a California or EU resident may not extend to someone in a state without comparable legislation.
Some services now automate parts of the opt-out process, submitting removal requests to dozens of brokers on our behalf. These can’t erase the data trail entirely, but they can narrow what’s actively available for sale.
Beyond deletion, there are smaller choices that reduce how much new data we generate. We can audit which apps have permission to track our location or access our contacts, since a surprising amount of behavioral data comes from apps that don’t need those permissions to function. We can treat “sign in with Google” and “sign in with Facebook” buttons as what they are: data-sharing agreements that can link a new service to an existing profile. And we can glance at the first few lines of a privacy policy before agreeing, looking for some version of “we may share your information with our partners,” where “partners” just means anyone willing to pay.
Most of us don’t read privacy policies, and the policies aren’t built to be read. They average thousands of words of dense legal language filled with terms like “legitimate interest,” “data processor,” and “de-identified data.” Studies consistently put them at a late high school to early college reading level (grade 12 to 14), but the difficulty goes beyond reading level: the concepts are abstract, the volume of agreements we encounter is enormous, and the design of the consent process itself pushes us through as fast as possible. Pre-checked boxes, auto-scrolling agreement windows, “accept all” buttons positioned prominently while “customize settings” options sit behind additional clicks. These are dark patterns, design choices that make the path of least resistance the path of maximum data sharing.
The result is a gap between the moment we share a piece of information and the moment that information shapes a decision about our lives. We don’t connect the app to the insurance premium or the loyalty card to the rental application because the chain of custody between them is long, complex, and designed to stay out of view.
The same critical thinking we’ve learned to apply to the information flowing toward us (checking sources, questioning claims, looking for bias) applies to the information flowing from us: who’s collecting this, what will they do with it, who else will see it, and what did we agree to? The difference is that in the data economy, we’re the product being evaluated, and the questions are being asked about us rather than by us.
So can we get it back? Not entirely. Data that’s already been collected, copied, sold, and processed across multiple systems can’t be fully recalled. What we can do is reduce what’s actively available for sale, slow the flow of new data going forward, and take advantage of legal tools that didn’t exist a few years ago. The archive of our past digital lives is too distributed to undo, but the file is still being written, and we have more say over the next page than we did over the last twenty years of them.
So what if they have our data? The tradeoff extends well beyond better ads. It reaches into the prices we’re charged, the credit we’re offered, the jobs we’re considered for, the insurance premiums we pay, the AI systems trained on our behavior, the accuracy of the profiles used to make decisions about our lives, and the degree to which government agencies can monitor our movements without a warrant. Every new service we sign up for, every permission we grant, and every terms-of-service agreement we accept adds another layer to that file. We can’t close the file entirely, but we can make more informed decisions about what goes into it next…
Eminently worth reading in full: “So What if They Have My Data?“
See also: “Why Do We Care So Much About Privacy?” (source of the image above) in which Louis Menand suggests that our concern should be with the “weaponization” of data…
* Daniel J. Solove, Nothing to Hide: The False Tradeoff Between Privacy and Security
###
As we reinforce our rights, we might recall that it was on this date in 1996 that the internet-as-we’ve-come-to-know-it broke big into the mainstream: Yahoo! launched the national campaign that asked “Do You Yahoo?” advertising its web-based search service on national television. The campaign was created by ad agency Black Rocket and Yahoo Marketing Head Karen Edwards (whose many awards for the work include a seat in the Advertising Hall of Achievement).
An early spot from the campaign…
https://youtu.be/X2_XzGPqBJ0?si=VxM6vlzcR89uDOKr
#advertising #culture #data #DoYouYahoo #history #KarenEdwards #personalData #politics #privacy #security #society #Technology #television #Yahoo -
“Privacy is rarely lost in one fell swoop. It is usually eroded over time, little bits dissolving almost imperceptibly until we finally begin to notice how much is gone.”*…
… And now, indeed, we’re beginning to notice. Hana Lee Goldin surveys the state of play– who’s buying our personal information, what they’re using it for, and how the system works behind the screen– and considers our options…
Sometime in the mid-2000s, most of us started handing over pieces of ourselves to the internet without giving the exchange a second thought. We created email accounts, signed up for social media, bought things online, downloaded apps, swiped loyalty cards, connected fitness trackers, stored photos in the cloud, and agreed to terms of service that almost none of us have ever read in full. We did this thousands of times over two decades and counting, and each interaction felt small enough to be inconsequential.
But the accumulation is enormous. More than 6 billion people now use the internet, and each one makes an estimated 5,000 digital interactions per day. Most of those interactions happen without our conscious awareness: a GPS ping, a page load, an app opening, a browser cookie refreshing, a device checking in with a cell tower. The average person in 2010 made an estimated 298 digital interactions per day. In fifteen years, that number multiplied more than sixteenfold. Those digital interactions produce records that can persist indefinitely, stored, copied, indexed, bought, sold, and combined with other records to build profiles of extraordinary detail.
If we’ve been online since the late 1990s or early 2000s, our data footprint can include social media accounts we’ve created, online purchases we’ve made, forums we’ve posted in, loyalty cards we’ve used, and apps we’ve installed going back decades. Some of that information lives on platforms we’ve long forgotten. Some of it was collected by companies that have since been acquired or dissolved, with our data potentially passing to successor entities we’ve never heard of. The digital life most of us have been living for 15 to 25 years has produced a layered, evolving archive that only grows more valuable to the people who buy and sell it as time goes on.
Most of us sense that something is off about all of this. In a 2023 survey, Pew Research found that roughly eight in ten Americans feel they have little to no control over the data companies collect about them, 71% are concerned about government data use, and 67% say they understand little to nothing about what companies are doing with their personal information. The concern is real and widespread. And so is the feeling of helplessness: 60% of Americans believe it’s impossible to go through daily life without having their data tracked. The unease is there. What’s missing is a clear picture of what’s happening on the other side of the transaction…
[Goldin explains what data is being collected and shared, and by whom; how the data is managed and trafficked; how its being used (by insurance and financial companies, employers and landlords, retailers, AI companies, governments, and criminals); and how “inferred” data is used to augment the “hard” data. It’s chilling. She then puts the issue into context, and discusses we we can– and cannot– do about it…]
… The philosopher Helen Nissenbaum has a framework for what’s happening here: contextual integrity. The idea is that privacy isn’t about secrecy. We share information willingly all the time, when the context fits. We tell our doctor about a health condition because we expect that information to stay within the medical relationship. We search for symptoms on a health website because we assume that search won’t follow us into an insurance application. In the current data economy, that’s exactly the kind of boundary that dissolves, because the company collecting the data and the company buying it are operating in completely different contexts.
This is an information literacy problem as much as a privacy problem. Information literacy is usually framed around consumption: evaluating sources, questioning claims, recognizing bias in what we read and watch. But every time we interact with a digital service, we’re also producing information: generating a record that will be read, interpreted, scored, and acted on by organizations we may never interact with directly. Many of us have gotten better at questioning the information that comes at us: checking sources, noticing bias, and recognizing when something is trying to sell us a conclusion. But we haven’t developed equivalent habits around the information that flows from us: where it goes after we hand it over, who reads the record, what incentives they have, and what conclusions they draw. The gap between what we think we’re consenting to and what we’ve agreed to in practice is where the real exposure lives, and the system is designed to keep that gap invisible.
One of the reasons the “so what” question is hard to answer with action is that opting out of data collection often means opting out of participation. Declining a social media platform’s terms of service means not using the platform. Refusing location permissions can mean losing access to navigation, ride-sharing, weather, and delivery apps. Choosing not to create an account can mean paying more, seeing less, or being locked out of services that have become essential infrastructure for work, communication, healthcare, banking, and education.
The architecture of digital consent treats data sharing as a binary: agree to the terms or don’t use the product. There’s rarely a middle option that allows us to use a service while limiting what data gets collected and where it goes. The result is that the “choice” to share data often functions as a condition of entry into daily life rather than an informed negotiation. We’re not handing over data because we’ve weighed the tradeoff and decided it’s fair. We’re handing it over because the alternative is exclusion from services we rely on.
This is the structural context behind the Pew Research Center finding that more than half of Americans believe it’s impossible to go through daily life without being tracked. For many of us, it isn’t possible, at least not without significant inconvenience or sacrifice. The question isn’t whether we can avoid data collection entirely, because for the vast majority of people who participate in modern life, the answer is no. The question is whether we can make more informed decisions within the constraints we’re operating in, and whether the system can be pushed – through regulation, through market pressure, through better tools – toward something more transparent.
California’s Delete Act, which took effect in January 2026, is the strongest example of what’s emerging. It created a platform called DROP (Delete Request and Opt-Out Platform) that lets California residents submit a single deletion request to every registered data broker in the state. Brokers are required to process those requests, maintain suppression lists to prevent re-collection, and check the platform regularly for new requests. The European Union’s GDPR provides similar individual rights, and a handful of other U.S. states have enacted their own privacy laws with varying levels of protection. But the coverage is uneven: what’s available to a California or EU resident may not extend to someone in a state without comparable legislation.
Some services now automate parts of the opt-out process, submitting removal requests to dozens of brokers on our behalf. These can’t erase the data trail entirely, but they can narrow what’s actively available for sale.
Beyond deletion, there are smaller choices that reduce how much new data we generate. We can audit which apps have permission to track our location or access our contacts, since a surprising amount of behavioral data comes from apps that don’t need those permissions to function. We can treat “sign in with Google” and “sign in with Facebook” buttons as what they are: data-sharing agreements that can link a new service to an existing profile. And we can glance at the first few lines of a privacy policy before agreeing, looking for some version of “we may share your information with our partners,” where “partners” just means anyone willing to pay.
Most of us don’t read privacy policies, and the policies aren’t built to be read. They average thousands of words of dense legal language filled with terms like “legitimate interest,” “data processor,” and “de-identified data.” Studies consistently put them at a late high school to early college reading level (grade 12 to 14), but the difficulty goes beyond reading level: the concepts are abstract, the volume of agreements we encounter is enormous, and the design of the consent process itself pushes us through as fast as possible. Pre-checked boxes, auto-scrolling agreement windows, “accept all” buttons positioned prominently while “customize settings” options sit behind additional clicks. These are dark patterns, design choices that make the path of least resistance the path of maximum data sharing.
The result is a gap between the moment we share a piece of information and the moment that information shapes a decision about our lives. We don’t connect the app to the insurance premium or the loyalty card to the rental application because the chain of custody between them is long, complex, and designed to stay out of view.
The same critical thinking we’ve learned to apply to the information flowing toward us (checking sources, questioning claims, looking for bias) applies to the information flowing from us: who’s collecting this, what will they do with it, who else will see it, and what did we agree to? The difference is that in the data economy, we’re the product being evaluated, and the questions are being asked about us rather than by us.
So can we get it back? Not entirely. Data that’s already been collected, copied, sold, and processed across multiple systems can’t be fully recalled. What we can do is reduce what’s actively available for sale, slow the flow of new data going forward, and take advantage of legal tools that didn’t exist a few years ago. The archive of our past digital lives is too distributed to undo, but the file is still being written, and we have more say over the next page than we did over the last twenty years of them.
So what if they have our data? The tradeoff extends well beyond better ads. It reaches into the prices we’re charged, the credit we’re offered, the jobs we’re considered for, the insurance premiums we pay, the AI systems trained on our behavior, the accuracy of the profiles used to make decisions about our lives, and the degree to which government agencies can monitor our movements without a warrant. Every new service we sign up for, every permission we grant, and every terms-of-service agreement we accept adds another layer to that file. We can’t close the file entirely, but we can make more informed decisions about what goes into it next…
Eminently worth reading in full: “So What if They Have My Data?“
See also: “Why Do We Care So Much About Privacy?” (source of the image above) in which Louis Menand suggests that our concern should be with the “weaponization” of data…
* Daniel J. Solove, Nothing to Hide: The False Tradeoff Between Privacy and Security
###
As we reinforce our rights, we might recall that it was on this date in 1996 that the internet-as-we’ve-come-to-know-it broke big into the mainstream: Yahoo! launched the national campaign that asked “Do You Yahoo?” advertising its web-based search service on national television. The campaign was created by ad agency Black Rocket and Yahoo Marketing Head Karen Edwards (whose many awards for the work include a seat in the Advertising Hall of Achievement).
An early spot from the campaign…
https://youtu.be/X2_XzGPqBJ0?si=VxM6vlzcR89uDOKr
#advertising #culture #data #DoYouYahoo #history #KarenEdwards #personalData #politics #privacy #security #society #Technology #television #Yahoo -
I am calling for a moratorium on all forms of the word “test” in headlines, except to refer to literal tests (e.g., the SAT). It means nothing in particular, other than to herald the presence of a readymade media narrative or trope.
On second thought - keep using it. It tells me what stories to ignore.
-
Saverio Cannistrà, OCD: Carmelite Shepherd for Pisa
On February 6, 2025, Pope Francis appointed Saverio of the Sacred Heart Cannistrà, O.C.D., as the new Archbishop of Pisa. A Discalced Carmelite friar, theologian, and former Superior General of the Order, Archbishop-elect Cannistrà has served the Church with wisdom, humility, and a profound sense of the Carmelite charism.
In 2019, during the Extraordinary Definitory of the Discalced Carmelite Friars in Goa, India, he delivered a homily at the site of the first Discalced Carmelite foundation in the country, established in 1619. This gathering marked the fourth centenary of the Teresian Carmelites’ presence in India, a milestone that invited reflection on the Order’s missionary spirit.
The homily that follows was translated by the blogger for that occasion. Archbishop-elect Cannistrà reflected on the courage and spiritual depth that animated the first Discalced Carmelites in India. His words from Goa take on renewed significance today as he prepares for his new pastoral mission in Pisa.
For a deeper look at his Carmelite roots and new pastoral mission, listen to our latest podcast episode below.
https://youtu.be/q6yDfu6rhhc?si=L3sD8gqk8bAUhK3k
His full homily from the 2019 gathering follows.
A Carmelite Reflection on Mission
(Homily of Father Saverio Cannistrà, O.C.D., Goa, February 8, 2019 – Translation by the blogger)
Votive Mass of Blesseds Denis and Redemptus
Readings: Eph 6:10–20; Mt 5:1–12It is with special emotion that I preside at this Eucharistic celebration together with all of you, my dear brothers in Carmel. We are in the place where the first Discalced Carmelite convent stood in Goa and in India. The first three Carmelites arrived in Goa on Christmas Day, 1619: they were Father Leandro of the Annunciation and two professed students, Brother Elías and Brother José Alejo.
The convent was officially inaugurated on March 19, 1621, with the vestition of seven novices, among whom was a young Portuguese soldier who took the name Brother Redemptus of the Cross [Blessed Redemptus].
On July 16 of the following year, the church was solemnly dedicated to Our Lady of Mount Carmel. The community remained here for about 90 years, until 1709, when all non-Portuguese missionaries were forced to leave. The convent was then handed over to the Oratorians of St. Philip Neri.
It was in this convent, on Christmas Day in 1636, that Father Dionysius of the Nativity [Blessed Denis] made his solemn profession in the hands of Father Filippo of the Holy Trinity, a missionary, theologian, writer, and, at the end of his life, Superior General of the Congregation of Italy. While Father Dionysius was studying theology in preparation for his priestly ordination, Brother Redemptus of the Cross, who had returned to Goa from the Tatta mission (in present-day Pakistan), was serving as porter and sacristan in the same monastery.
As we know, in 1638, these two friars—Blesseds Denis and Redemptus—were sent to Sumatra as part of a diplomatic mission to the Sultan of Aceh, where they were ultimately martyred for the faith.
These simple historical notes give us an idea of the richness of the history that we commemorate today: a history of holiness, of Carmelite life, of missionary zeal, and above all, of love for God and neighbor. Many thoughts and feelings arise as we remember this.
The first is a sense of awe at the dynamism shown by the Teresian Carmel in its early years. Who would have imagined that just fifty years after its humble beginnings in Duruelo, the Discalced Carmelites would already be in Goa—the capital of the Portuguese Indies, a metropolis of about 200,000 inhabitants—having passed through Poland, Persia, the island of Ormuz, and the empire of the Great Mogul?
Scholars can analyze the historical reasons behind this extraordinary expansion of a small group of contemplative religious. But for us, this history calls us to reflect on what the true strength of our religious vocation is:
It is not the force of numbers, nor of tradition, nor of structures, which can become a burden and an obstacle. It is the power of the Spirit, the abundance of his gifts, which transforms our weakness and our fears into the courage and joy of the disciples and apostles of Jesus Christ.
As we heard in the first reading, it is the armor of God that allows us to face the trials and challenges of history. Truth, justice, peace, faith, and listening to the Word of God are the weapons that make up this armor.
A second thought concerns the relationship between contemplation and action. Nothing is more misleading than opposing these two dimensions. The more one is truly contemplative, the more one is truly active—or rather, we become instruments of God’s action, servants of His will.
The first generations of Discalced Carmelites—especially Father John of Jesus-Mary—understood perfectly the core message of St. Teresa of Avila:
Contemplation is allowing oneself to be invaded and transformed by God, who is Love. And Love is always the same: love for God and love for humanity. These two cannot be separated.
It was the fire of this love that made our confreres of four centuries ago so dynamic and effective. They loved God and gave themselves to Him without reserve. But precisely for this reason, they loved the Church and made themselves radically available to it, with obedience, without personal agendas.
They loved humanity, appreciated and valued the cultures, languages, and places where they lived. Their contemplation naturally opened them to mission, which was a movement of true encounter. These Carmelites understood that going on a mission meant getting close to others, listening, studying, and discovering the richness of different peoples.
Thus, their study of theology was not separate from their study of languages, religions, geography, and even botany.
Love is like the sun: it warms, it allows all of humanity to grow and bear fruit in those who allow themselves to be illuminated by it.
Dear brothers, let us thank the Lord for these 400 years of Carmelite presence in India. Let us do so with joyful hearts and with humble awareness of our smallness in the face of such greatness.
At the same time, let us do so with the conviction that this history is not over—it continues in us. We are the brothers of Father Leandro, Father Filippo, Father Dionysius, and Brother Redemptus.
From them, we can learn what it means to live our Carmelite vocation today—as children of St. Teresa and St. John of the Cross.
Let us ask for their intercession, so that the flame that the Spirit ignited in their hearts may not be extinguished in us and in our communities.
Four hundred years ago, the first Discalced Carmelites set foot in India, carrying the spirit of St. Teresa of Avila beyond Europe. Today, one of their sons is called to shepherd the Church in Pisa. The same trust in divine providence that sustained those early missionaries now accompanies Archbishop-elect Saverio Cannistrà as he prepares for his new mission.
Let us entrust him to the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel and the protection of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. May the Holy Spirit, who guided the first Carmelites to distant lands, guide him now as he takes up his pastoral office in Pisa.
Want to stay updated on Carmelite wisdom and reflections? Listen to the Carmelite Quotes podcast, subscribe to our blog, and share this post with others!
Translation from the Italian text is the blogger’s own work product and may not be reproduced without permission.
Featured image: Discalced Carmelite Superior General Saverio of the Sacred Heart Cannistrà, O.C.D. greets Pope Francis in St. Peter’s Square at the Mass for the canonization of St. Mary of Jesus Crucified Baouardy. Image credit: Discalced Carmelites
#archbishop #BlessedsDenisAndRedemptus #DenisOfTheNativity #DiscalcedCarmelite #friars #homily #India #nomination #Podcast #PopeFrancis #RedemptusOfTheCross
-
@AlisonCreekside Let's hope, if it comes to that, that the #Canadian #Senate will live up to their role to give "Sober Second Thought" and vote down the more outlandish bills a #PierrePoilievre government might come up with.
#AndrewCoyne discusses in #TheGlobeAndMail #GiftLink https://www.theglobeandmail.com/gift/47e14988ee9a721e5c79e5557d3c84ac608683b2395ee901b2ff0e6a2dffa335/B7NID4IHQNBBZENN5UPIOSN2NE/ #cdnpoli -
absolutely mental shit coming out that 10 years ago you definitely wouldn't even give a second thought to be reality, true or even a possibility.
now you watch maga #mattgaetz say whistle-blowers have told him there's a secret hybrid breeding program; 👱♀️ x 👽 ..
-
absolutely mental shit coming out that 10 years ago you definitely wouldn't even give a second thought to be reality, true or even a possibility.
now you watch maga #mattgaetz say whistle-blowers have told him there's a secret hybrid breeding program; 👱♀️ x 👽
#GifsArtidote: i don't trust fascists but i know there's many
reputable ppl talking about this. plus nothing surprises me anymore, especially what seems to be the trend now:
a pandemic of extreme violence & depravity