"Opt out of all FOG DATA SCIENCE data sets"

What -- exactly -- does that do, how quickly, and what are some of the side-effects?\

Underneath, it says "You will be removed from all our data sets." And yet I doubt that very much. Surely there will be an entry in a database somewhere saying "Device identifier ________-____-_____-_____-_____ requested removed date-and-time _____ from IP address _____", etc.
And does that only retroactively remove data? Suppose they snarf up another dataset, bought from someone else or collected by themselves. Is that data also removed from their datasets, or does another removal request have to be made?

"Science is about a specific process: you make a hypothesis, you set up a test of your hypothesis, you test it, find it true or not and based on that your hypothesis becomes a scientific theory or a rejected hypothesis."

That's the junior-high version of science. The one done poorly on cardboard. It's sad that people still trot out the whole "it's a process" trope.

And yet that one sentence makes more sense than the rest of the post.

Betterbird doesn't solve all of Thunderbird's problems, but it *does* act a little more sanely in many respects, and the search works a bit better on my machines.

Why would you presume *that* from what was written?

What?

"Go away! Batin'! ...
Please."

is not politeness. What this plan *may* do is rotate out people until the ones who are genuinely polite get to the customer-facing positions. It may also devalue politeness to the point of being worthless. Regardless of the mechanism behind the scenes, people are going to be suspicious of whomever is interacting with them.

I see what you did there.

https://darknetdiaries.com/epi...

With enough *low entropy* energy, and a large enough heat-sink to capture the higher-entropy energy after the process. Energy is a requirement, sure, but it's not all.

The rule from the dot com bubble is "always be second". First spends all the R&D to solve a hard problem. The second comer copies the first, for half the price, because they don't need any R&D. So there is an incentive to not solve hard problems in capitalism.

Maybe you didn't mean to react to the security researcher's quotes, but too bad. It was there, in the public posting space. So I'm going to drop part of it here:

"I had the ability to delete any of the video footage or evidence by simply pressing a button. I could see the paths where all of the evidence files were located on the file system..."

That's part of the "so what?".

Indeed! Even worse than borderless windows.

Kind of, but with discrete transitions (at least for the neuronal potential in one direction. There's hysteresis built in). The states are pseudo-binary, very much unlike analog computers.

Thanks. I did indeed miss it in the headline, especially since it was misquoted by the OP (but the meaning is taken).