But no, I’d laugh at them because of how absurd it would be.
We don’t have that luxury.
I mean my home is also the evil empire pillaging the rest of the world
So maybe don’t tell us we’re weird about our own nationalism/patriotism when said evil pillaging empire threatens to pillage us?
That’s why agile was created. Because people don’t know what they want in panel 1.
Yeah, it requires replacing the “you test the rocket” with “you test the rocket and it fails or doesn’t meet the updated mission specifications” and the “you go to mars” with “you want to go to mars”
Bah, I was there. .jif was barely used and came 5 years after. They should have used a different name!
This could be a router or VPN issue, or both. Is FitGirl private? They probably have info about port forwarding and seeding in an FAQ.
Gagascript. One is soft, one is hard.
It doesn’t matter what it stands for. That’s not how acronyms work.
You don’t say “yolwa” for “YOLO”
You don’t say “Ah-ih-dees” for “AIDS”
You don’t say “britches” for “BRICS”
You don’t say “sue-knee” for “CUNY” (City University of New York)
Etc.
And if you want to argue specifically about G:
You don’t say “Jad” for “GAD” (generalized anxiety disorder)
You don’t say “joes” for “GOES” (Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite)
It’s not a hill I’m going to die on, I use both pronunciations, but the only argument I’ve ever believed for the proper one is that the creator pronounced it “jif”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIF#Pronunciation
Now let’s talk about “gibs” you heathens.
GIF like Geoffrey the giraffe, if you get my gist. Always has been.
Mmmm, yeasty.
I haven’t heard of this. I make my personal websites from scratch in html and css using notepad++. I should probably modernize…
Not git, Perforce, but I used to have a guy on my team that would do weeks of work without checking in. 1000s of lines in 10s of files.
I gave him shit for every code review, every time we had 1-on-1s, and while he was doing his tasks. Nothing got through to him.
So I just kept dragging him back on check-ins. I’d nitpick the shit out of every line (and normally I hated that.) His stuff would inevitably break the build or be full of bugs anyway (duh) so I never felt bad that I was holding back his career since he was never getting things done “on time.”
If you can’t/won’t break your work down into smaller chunks you aren’t a skilled programmer and/or don’t have respect for the people you work with who have to review your shit.
Weirdly mine seems to have disappeared without doing anything around the time I read this post…
Shouldn’t Google and Apple go to jail for distribution?
I’m ootl. What debunks have come out?
I haven’t heard about this? What’d he do?
Operator: Hotline.
Andy: Hi, yes, I’m calling because it’s more than four hours and your ad said to call if it’s been more than four hours.
Operator: How much of the medicine have you taken, sir?
Andy: I haven’t taken any, but your ad said that if you’ve had an erection for more than four hours, you call.
Operator: You’re only supposed to call if you’ve taken the medicine.
Andy: Okay. I’m sorry. I must not have heard that part.
Operator: Yes. If you haven’t taken the medicine, you don’t call.
Andy: Right. I’m sorry. Right. So, there’s nothing you can do? I just don’t wanna–
Operator: There’s nothing I can do. I’m in Bombay, India.
Andy: Okay. No, not you personally. I just don’t want–I just don’t want to have an erection anymore.
Operator: You know, you could have sex.
Andy: Okay. Yup.
Operator: That’s one thing people do when they have an erection.
Andy: Yeah, that’s not an option. I don’t have sex.
Operator: Okay, well, then you can masturbate.
Andy: I’d rather not masturbate.
Operator: If you’d like the erection to go away, you can light a match, blow out the flame and put the hot ember on your wrist. And that will focus the brain elsewhere, and you will lose your erection.
Andy: Really? That’d work?
Operator: Take your finger and flick your testicle, and if you do that till it hurts, your erection will go away.
Andy: Okay, all right. It sounds unpleasant and it is.
Operator: It is a trick we use in India.
Andy: Okay, those are all good pieces of advice. I really appreciate it.
Operator: We appreciate your business–oh, no. We didn’t get your business!
Andy: No, not this time. I guess I didn’t need you this time. Thank you.
Nice try :P
I’m not OP, but I would say it’s not a well-written informational article, and the entire argument made by the author is to directly contradict the title.
The author seems to be trying to come off as an investigative journalist, but does so by trying to weave an entertaining story. In the parts where the author does make journalistic points (rather than creative writing) they often aren’t clear about their points. They vaguely mention things without telling you what they think that means. For readers, that means you have to work to glean the actual points from their story, both by deciphering what isn’t creative writing, and by unraveling their unexplained quotations and off-hand statements.
When they finally start getting away from creative writing, you’re subject to a bunch of info and quotations pulled directly from the Repubblica article before finally getting to the meat of the author’s argument (emphasis mine): “The report strongly implies that these sites exist to lure in unsuspecting customers, gather evidence of wrongdoing, then use self-provided names and addresses to issue fines.” There are a couple of quotes that kind of back this up. However the author even agrees that the quotes aren’t really supportive: “It doesn’t state that directly but most reasonable readers seem likely to draw that conclusion.”
But most of the discussion/quotes in this area are just telling you random info from the Repubblica article that is unrelated to this argument anyway.
Then the article takes a left turn and starts randomly talking about sting operation legality in multiple jurisdictions, and some random statements about the (il)legality of IPTV. I think the implication here is that law enforcement wouldn’t do this type of sting since it would be illegal, and what the targets are doing isn’t likely to be deemed illegal anyway. This seems like a weak argument, at best, but it’s the best I can come up with since the author didn’t explicitly tell us their point here.
As a reminder, the title of the article is ‘Bogus Pirate IPTV Portals Run By Law Enforcement “Entrap Hundreds”’. That means you’re going into the article thinking you’re going to get a story about Bogus Pirate IPTV sites. But then the author is basing that title off an article they spend their whole article debunking. That just makes it that extra little bit of difficult to quickly read the article. A more accurate title would have been "Italian Journal Claims Bogus Pirate IPTV Portals Run By Law Enforcement to Entrap Hundreds (But I Don’t Think It’s True) ”.
All in all, I think it’s a difficult read, and most certainly a difficult scan.
Get Brianthompson’d, Reddit.