"Without a doubt, prices were raised."

Some were but we do know that in aggregate prices were not generally raised because we experienced no significant net price increases or inflation in consumer goods.

"How are you going to pay "the consumers" back?"

The ironic thing is that's what Trump wanted to do and these same people were foaming at the mouth about it.

"I don't understand it could work any other way than the people who directly paid the tariffs (businesses for the most part) should be the ones that get their money back."

Hopefully they prioritize companies which altered their supply chains to domestic product to the point that nobody else sees a penny until their great great great grandchildren's lifetime.

Tariffs were specifically introduced into our law for the purpose of impacting trade policy, not raising revenue. Whether you want to group them as taxes in a single umbrella or see them as distinct is purely semantics, they remain distinct in intent and practice from taxes intended to raise revenue. While many note taxes discourage the thing which is taxed tariffs may well be the only taxes implemented with that as the primary aim.

Ideally a tariffs is rarely paid because it discouraged trade with the tariffed party and if it is paid it likely did not result in increased price to the consumer [as we've seen from the lack of inflation brought by Trump's tariffs] but rather a reduced profit for the seller. Why? Because tariffs aren't blanket.. they are competing on price against other parties who pay lower or no tariffs.

It is not known. Despite being oft repeated TDS the pricing data shows no significant post tariff inflation.

Yup, defaults don't matter. Just ask Microsoft.

Bluesky was literally founded because Musk bought twitter and ended the authoritarian censorship regime by the same people running the authoritarian twitter censorship regime. They literally call it "Blue" to indicate the nature of the echo chamber.

Just because they have thin claims of openness because they built it upon and ripped off open and user focused technology doesn't lend their claim any credibility.

"You think that BlueSky users scare people, and then you admit to being part of a community that consistently produces mass murderers."

Ummm... that would be bluesky.

It essentially costs nothing to mirror their posts to X alongside the rest of the list and notice they list Bluesky, the official network of mass censorship and authoritarian repression, at the top of their list. This is a political ad and it is diametrically opposed to the principals the EFF CLAIMS to stand for, attacking the platform that promotes freedom and promoting those who oppose it.

"But let's be honest and ask when was the last time the EFF got a real headline?"

They haven't actually aligned with their mission in a long time. It essentially costs nothing to mirror their posts to X alongside the rest of the list and notice they list Bluesky, the official network of mass censorship and authoritarian repression, at the top of their list. This is a political ad and it is diametrically opposed to the principals the EFF CLAIMS to stand for, attacking the platform that promotes freedom and promoting those who oppose it.

Of course they did, they are leftists. The Nazi's were socialists and the Democrats founded the Klan... and the ACLU is just their modern day front.

The EFF stopped fighting for freedom of speech when their leftist friends began outlawing it.

The attacker did release updated versions but your other comment suggests you already realized that but I'll explain for anyone else.

They removed the hacked versions and rolled the project version back to the good version. I'm saying they should increment the version number of the clean version to be higher than the hacked versions so the systems which had already installed the compromised packages will recognize the clean version as newer and having priority over the hacked one. In some cases automatic updates might even cause the hacked version to be replaced with a clean one automatically.

The desire to 'detect' an attack [or at least that they were temporarily vulnerable so they can look for one] is the only case for not doing that which I can think of. My contention is that minimizing the window of vulnerability at scale is more critical, anyone who is looking to see if they were running the vulnerable version is exactly the level of informed they'd need to be know to look at logs which indicate they HAD been running the vulnerable version. The vast majority probably aren't informed and won't check anything and they'll sit vulnerable until the compromise triggers some kind of alarm or the version number finally organically increments over what the attacker used.

Otherwise systems won't automatically treat the clean release as newer and replace the contaminated ones.

"So deepfake porn of people without their consent, and without adequate regard of age."

Without regard for age would be illegal content so that would be blocked. As for deepfakes... they are fake and therefore the person they look similar to has no more claim than to images of any of the thousands of similar looking people walking around. I see no reason they need to have an 'erotic mode' but for adult users adult content and other perfectly legal content should not be blocked. In fact, generally speaking the company shouldn't be liable for what people do with the service anyway but also required to operate as a common carriers without imposing THEIR interpretations of morality or law upon the third parties using the service.

This technology is about 0.0001% technology and the rest is data which doesn't belong to these tech companies. I actually think that is fine as long as the models are open and have at least two unrestricted implementations available [or can be readily run by consumers] and their output is exempt from copyright on its own [the output is considered a format shift of the prompt(s)].

Cool. Where are your receipts?

"Yeah, according to the epstein files, the little girls are the ones that the president rapes."

Okay, which file says that. By all means show us something that isn't related to one already public and debunked claim that everyone knew all along but the media and clowns on bluesky kept repeating like it was newly found and damning evidence with each release.