also it’s from the spammer’s “staging” instance, so the payload is a URL with a staging hostname which doesn’t even resolve 🙄

certain 2-parters are counted as 1

this explains the total of 170

a handful are credit only

as a main cast member he is in the opening credit sequence of every episode, which explains IMDB saying he’s in every one.

but how/where did you arrive at the number 163? i only arrived there by seeing that Memory Alpha lists 160 character appearances (which I see now does single-count Emissary and presumably two other two-part episodes) and then checking the mirror universe episodes to see if there were any without the Chief in them (and finding two) and then remembering Far Beyond the Stars.

anyway i guess either of the numbers in the meme could be correct, but not both at once: 163 is correct if you double-count three two-part episodes, and 170 is correct if you single-count them. 🤓

(and the numbers in my first comment are inconsistent in the same way.)

Fucking Chief Miles O’Brien appeared in 163 of 170 episodes, Dude

For one thing, there were 173 episodes of DS9.

And while Colm Meaney does appear in 163 of them, he is only portraying Chief Miles O’Brien in 160 episodes: in Far Beyond the Stars he portrays Albert Macklin and in The Emperor’s New Cloak and Through the Looking Glass he only portrays mirror universe Miles O’Brien.

I am curious where the creator of this meme arrived at the number 163, since IMDB incorrectly says that Meaney is in all 173 episodes.

Regarding TVs, WikiLeaks’ Vault 7 publication in 2017 included “Weeping Angel”, CIA malware for Samsung TVs which streams audio from them while they’re in “fake off” mode.

https://mashable.com/article/cia-samsung-tv-hack-weeping-angel

It’s good to see someone in this thread who knows what an IPv5 address looks like:

IPv5 addresses consist of four hextets a 16bit each.  For the visual
representation, those grouping are used.  The hextets might be
written in decimal, separated by dot '.' characters, or as
hexadecimal numbers, separated by colon ':'.

It’s long past time to start replacing our IPv4.1 deployments!

Activity lights are useful

in even more ways than one might think.

(see also this and this later work from the same author…)

You’re correct on both points (🤦‍♂️ indeed).

I’ve now edited this post to link to their advisory text file instead of their advertising-heavy blog post about it which I had initially linked when the above comment was posted. Thanks.

Nice, thanks.

It would certainly be nice to be able to pre-download language pair models without selecting to and from and then actually initiating a translation using the model i don’t have yet.

re: getting uBlock externally, i also see the attraction of that approach but unfortunately Debian’s package was last updated in October (from 1.62 to 1.67) while AMO has a release from January (1.69) :/

imo it would be better to bundle UBO and ship its updates along with browser updates.

are there plans to distribute Konform via flathub?

Full-page machine translations are disabled

Firefox translations are done offline (after downloading the model for a langauge pair).

Does anybody know why Konform decided to disable this very useful feature?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bustards

howard’s awkward canard

Here is a youtube video purportedly showing one actually working; they’ve been taking pre-orders since last summer but wikipedia editors say it’s unverifiable so they remove references to it from their “Mosquito laser” article.

https://startrek.website/post/6465008

Is that the UTC-0500 one?

lmao thanks for the reminder that there are four timezones which could be called “EST” 😭

(but UTC-5 is the only one properly called that)

this post is a screenshot of https://news.lettersofnote.com/p/oh-my-god-how-i-do-hate-species-and

see also https://news.lettersofnote.com/p/i-loathe-i-abhor-the-sea-and-all

and https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/ (where you can search and read the full text of over 15,000 of Darwin’s letters)

Weird this article doesn’t mention Hotmail and RocketMail, which both had email client web apps in 1996.

One group- memes or something is wholly controlled by Chinese state actors.

As one of the moderators of !memes@lemmy.ml i encourage OP to look at the sort of posts i make and tell me - do you really think i’m a “Chinese state actor”?

Do you think all these posts i make in, eg, !hoch@lemmy.ml and !goodnews@lemmy.ml and !badnews@lemmy.ml and !eleven@lemmy.ml… these are all part of a carefully-crafted cover, and I’m actually being paid by China to delete totally-not-racist posts depicting their president as a yellow cartoon bear?

And for this service, to maintain my cover, they also pay me to create memes like this and this and this and this and this and this (and defending that one against less informed nerds) and this and this and this (a small sample of my OC here)?

And do you think China paid for this understandable explanation of asymmetric cryptography using high-school level math, because someone asked, deep in a thread about a service which I’d also already debunked the snake-oil privacy claims of?

Really?

Does anything provide a similar experience to Arch’s amazing AUR

I am not aware of any software distribution service with a comparable experience (massive userbase with zero vetting for uploaders) as Arch’s amazing AUR - if you are looking for a way to distribute malware to many unsuspecting people (who’s friends think they’re hackerman), it’s really unparalleled. (😢)

To your primary question, yes, many people do successfully daily drive various Linux distros without ever opening the terminal. 🙄

In Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476 (1957), the Court sustained a conviction under a federal statute punishing the mailing of “obscene, lewd, lascivious or filthy . . .” materials. The key to that holding was the Court’s rejection of the claim that obscene materials were protected by the First Amendment. Five Justices joined in the opinion stating:

"All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance – unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion – have the full protection of the [First Amendment] guaranties, unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited area of more important interests. But implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance. . . . This is the same judgment expressed by this Court in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, 315 U. S. 571-572: "

". . . There are certain well defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene. . . . It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. . . ."

[Emphasis by Court in Roth opinion.]