FYI, the magic about:config key that you need to set to false is “keyword.enabled”. After that Firefox will finally stop using any non-url string as a search query and will instead say say “Hmm. That address doesn’t look right. Please check that the URL is correct and try again.”
I am still sad Hitachi was too embarrassed to carry on the legacy of its name and sold off the Magic Wand brand to its subsidiary manufacturer. Hitachi, the brand name was a compliment to you, not a liability! You lost out.
So I am proposing that the Democratic party is acting irrationally and suboptimally, but you claim that the Democrats are acting most optimally, and it is the fringe left that is acting irrationally instead by refusing to accept a unfair split against all game theory guidance, causing all of us to eat shit (despite them making up only low single digits). Yet if the Democrats are so rational, how come they keep losing? Shouldn’t they have found an optimal strategy to get around the irrational ultimatum of the left? Yet here we are.
I want people to be able to report bugs without any trouble.
Thank you for being aware! I’ve experienced this on github.com. I’ve tried to submit issues several times to open source projects, complete with proposed code to solve a bug, but github shadowbans my account 6 hours after creating it (because I use a VPN? a third-party email provider? do not provide a phone number? who knows). I can see the issue and pull request when logged in, but they only see a 404 on their project page even if I give them a direct link. I ended up sending them a screenshot of the issue page just to convince them this was even possible. Sad to hear gitlab does it even worse now by making phone mandatory.
the most a third party is going to do is shave off a few percentage points, resulting in the main party losing
If the third party can force the main party to lose, then it holds ultimatum power and game theory rules apply. The main party irrationally keeps rejecting the ultimatum and as a result keeps losing. To execute the threat of the ultimatum even after the unfair split has already been offered is the paradox of game theory. You have to appear credible enough to carry out such a threat, but the only reliable way to appear credible is to actually follow through on such threats every time.
The Democratic party keeps losing and shifting right because it acts irrationally and fails to execute optimal game theory strategy. It could have offered the left a fair split and we could have all had guaranteed single-payer medical care, food, and housing, but instead none of us will have women’s rights, and the immigrants and gays among us will be herded into cages.
Am I the only one for whom "open"subtitles.org hasn’t worked in years? I literally cannot find the download button, like in those okboomer memes. Never used the API. Switched to subscene.com and haven’t had problems since.
more evidence we need Civics back in our schools
Maybe we need more math as well - have you heard of the Ultimatum Game? Sometimes the rational strategy is to reject unfair split offers, even if that makes it a guarantee that you both get nothing.
I know traditionally the dream fantasy of book readers has been to own an expansive physical library, with shelf after shelf full of book spines, but I just could never get into it. I’m a data hoarder, not an object hoarder! All my books are digital, mandatory in plaintext DRM-free format, sorted and backed up. I find joy in the knowledge that everything I have ever read is instantly grep’able, ageless, and can fit in my pocket (on a thumbdrive) wherever I go.
I do prefer to read on e-ink as well, because the device is lighter than any book, guaranteed to fit in my pocket, can hold multiple books, and gives me control over font size. The only downside is when the battery gets old it needs more frequent recharging. A paper book will not refuse to work for lack of power!
far more maddeningly, some sites tell me that my username and password combo are incorrect when I’m using a VPN
Brb, gonna wiretap the judge’s house. It’s not a crime as long as I don’t act on the information I hear so there is no injury.
The list of tor exit ips is publicly viewable. Some IPS block the entire list contrary to Tor Project’s request not to do exactly that.
Try out the jetpack list on tvtropes in the “video games” tab: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JetPack
For example Dangerous Dave (1988) fits your description: video timestamp at 8m35s
The graphics looked incredible for its time, it was miles ahead of any other racing game. I just now realized the tracks are actually FMV! The camera doesn’t follow the car but the middle of the track, and splits at any fork. Neat trick! This way most everything is pre-rendered, with all the lighting and dynamic shadows and the like. Only the cars and obstacles are rendered in realtime, on top of the video. Cool how they managed to integrate it all together seamlessly!
Solution: answer “yes” whenever asked but don’t do anything further. This will stop the questions since the “mystery” has been solved. If someone actually propositions, say “flattered but you are not my type”. End up drowning in pussy from all the gay-chaser girls who think they “can change you”.
Many of us have already overcome it! All of them are holding us back though.
It’s like… I keep imagining what if I were a Manchurian Candidate CEO and tried to destroy the entire value of my company as surely as possible before being found out, what decisions would I make? And I must say, what spez and musk are doing keeps surprising me at every turn, because even in my imagination I have not come up with schemes as effective as theirs.
There’s also no addresses on Gedmatch, the police would email you and ask for your details.
You are splitting hairs. Unless you took precautions to use a fake name and an untraceable email address, the police are showing up at your door. It’s what they do.
On the ‘turned on by default’ statement, that’s just untrue.
Here’s the gedmatch page describing their policy, and here’s the screenshot they use to illustrate it:
“Public” is selected by default. Yeah yeah, they added “public opt-in” and “public opt-out” options in 2019 and forgot to update their screenshot, but I bet “public opt-in” is still selected by default. The NYT article says exactly that too. It is just untrue to call that “just untrue”! And can you guess what happened to all the people who uploaded their DNA data before 2019? Were all they automatically upgraded to “public opt-in”? I don’t understand why you are so adamant to protect gedmatch saying “go ahead, upload your DNA freely!” when we know for sure that it was a free-for-all at least until 2019.
And you are still splitting hairs because you haven’t refuted my main claim that police can get your data with a warrant. All that “opt-in/opt-out” is for the gedmatch’s voluntary police information warrantless sharing program. I have seen no indication that gedmatch will not search the entire database for a match upon police request with a warrant. I have reason to believe that they will, because I know the state is sovereign. You cannot shield your information stored at third parties from government search just because you signed a privacy agreement with them.
The law dictates it must have an opt in policy
The law of the state of Maryland, not the other 49 states. And I looked up the actual law, it doesn’t actually say “opt-in” contrary to the news article description of it:
https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Legislation/Details/hb0240?ys=2021RS
https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2021RS/Chapters_noln/CH_681_hb0240e.pdf
(D) FGGS MAY ONLY BE CONDUCTED USING A DIRECT–TO–CONSUMER OR PUBLICLY AVAILABLE OPEN–DATA PERSONAL GENOMICS DATABASE THAT: (1) PROVIDES EXPLICIT NOTICE TO ITS SERVICE USERS AND THE PUBLIC THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT MAY USE ITS SERVICE SITES TO INVESTIGATE CRIMES OR TO IDENTIFY UNIDENTIFIED HUMAN REMAINS; AND (2) SEEKS ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND CONSENT FROM ITS SERVICE USERS REGARDING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE NOTICE DESCRIBED IN ITEM (1) OF THIS SUBSECTION.
To me that sounds more like “providing a warning” than providing an “opt-in/opt-out” system. The “acknowledgment and consent” could be as simple as clicking “I agree to terms of service”. Here’s what gedmatch privacy policy says:
some of these possible uses of Raw Data, personal information, and/or Genealogy Data by any registered user of GEDmatch include but are not limited to:
Familial searching by third parties such as law enforcement agencies to identify the perpetrator of a crime, or to identify remains.
…
We may disclose your Raw Data, personal information, and/or Genealogy Data if it is necessary to comply with a legal obligation such as a subpoena or warrant.
…
we may use and disclose personal information for meeting legal requirements and enforcing legal terms, as described in more detail above
I am not a lawyer but to me that sounds like an explicit notice that law enforcement may get my data and satisfies the Maryland law requirement for a warrant. Specifically, gedmatch policy does not say they will ignore a warrant if you opt out. Again, my assertion is that the opt-in/opt-out system is for the voluntary warrantless information sharing system, and the warrants described in Maryland law are separate from that.
You also imply that 23andMe and ancestry.com do NOT share any information with law enforcement because they do not have an opt-in system. This is also false. Here’s ancestry.com policy:
Ancestry will release basic subscriber information as defined in 18 USC § 2703©(2) about Ancestry users to law enforcement only in response to a valid trial, grand jury or administrative subpoena.
Ancestry will release additional account information or transactional information pertaining to an account (such as search terms, but not including the contents of communications) only in response to a court order issued pursuant to 18 USC § 2703(d).
Contents of communications and any data relating to the DNA of an Ancestry user will be released only pursuant to a valid search warrant from a government agency with proper jurisdiction.
They WILL give up your DNA data to a valid warrant. The only question in my mind is whether they will also search the entire database for a given police sample. There is this article that says ancestry.com refused a police warrant in 2019 as improper, and police did not push the matter further. But it is unclear if ancestry.com was refusing to search its database on principle, or whether that one warrant in particular was faulty. Like if the police request “all 15 million DNA records” because they are idiots and don’t know how databases work there is grounds to argue that is too broad of a request. But we don’t have the text of the actual warrant. There are other articles that say police have been using specifically ancestry.com successfully to investigate crimes.
Someone would need to search the actual court cases where police used genealogy data to find suspects to confirm whether every single instance has used GEDMatch voluntary opt-in service, or whether police warrants have successfully retrieved match data from GEDMatch full database and from ancestry.com and 23andMe. I do not have such access.
EVEN IF ancestry.com and GEDmatch refuse warrants to search non-opt-in DNA in databases, such refusals have not yet been tested in court.
EVEN IF the Maryland law is amended/interpreted to mean that police cannot search non-opt-in DNA in databases even with a warrant (a voluntary restriction of the state on its own sovereign power, quite possible!), and EVEN IF the opt-in is made an explicit choice made in consultation with a “trained bioethicist” instead of an “I agree” checkbox below Terms of Service, and EVEN IF all other 49 states pass the same law as Maryland, it would STILL not be perfectly safe to upload your DNA to these services. Just as Maryland law changed in 2019, so it can change again. As we’ve seen with Roe v. Wade even long-established laws are not safe when there is a political interest to change them.
this is unrelated to genetic genealogy
Am I still misunderstanding something?
Beginning on Oct. 1, investigators working on Maryland cases will need a judge’s signoff before using the method, in which a “profile” of thousands of DNA markers from a crime scene is uploaded to genealogy websites to find relatives of the culprit. The new law, sponsored by Democratic lawmakers, also dictates that the technique be used only for serious crimes, such as murder and sexual assault. And it states that investigators may only use websites with strict policies around user consent.
To me that reads that the court order allows the police to use the genealogy database. For example:
Is that not a plausible scenario? What in the language of the law used by the NYT article makes you think this is disallowed? And remember, this is for Maryland only. The other 49 states can obtain a court order for any reason, be it murder or subway fare dodging.
it’s a program you need to opt in to
Again, not what privacy advocates from the NYT article say:
Currently, customers of GEDmatch and FamilyTreeDNA are given a choice about whether to participate in these searches. But the companies provide little information about what those searches entail, and the opt-in settings are turned on by default.
I.e. more like opt-out than opt-in, and again, irrelevant in case of a court order.
Ok, maybe I’m misremembering. There was some case where detectives simply submitted the DNA as their own, but maybe it was not GSK. Found this New York Times article: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/31/science/dna-police-laws.html
May 31, 2021 New laws in Maryland and Montana are the first in the nation to restrict law enforcement’s use of genetic genealogy, the DNA matching technique that in 2018 identified the Golden State Killer, in an effort to ensure the genetic privacy of the accused and their relatives.
Ah. So at least in 2021 only two states had any laws against trolling genealogy databases at all. Before 2021 none did. How many of remaining 48 have passes any laws about it since?
Beginning on Oct. 1, investigators working on Maryland cases will need a judge’s signoff before using the method, in which a “profile” of thousands of DNA markers from a crime scene is uploaded to genealogy websites to find relatives of the culprit.
As I said, a website cannot “allow” something if the police have a court order. They can only obey. Before 2021 police in Maryland could get genealogy info without court order. Now they can get it with one.
Montana’s new law, sponsored by a Republican, is narrower, requiring that government investigators obtain a search warrant before using a consumer DNA database, unless the consumer has waived the right to privacy.
Ok, so in Montana only:
What does waving entail?
Privacy advocates like Ms. Ram have been worried about genetic genealogy since 2018, when it was used to great fanfare to reveal the identity of the Golden State Killer, who murdered 13 people and raped dozens of women in the 1970s and ’80s. After matching the killer’s DNA to entries in two large genealogy databases, GEDmatch and FamilyTreeDNA, investigators in California identified some of the culprit’s cousins, and then spent months building his family tree to deduce his name — Joseph James DeAngelo Jr. — and arrest him.
Ok, so GEDmatch and FamilyTreeDNA were used, without court order…
Another sticky provision: Investigators may use only genealogy companies that have explicitly informed the public and their customers that law enforcement uses their databases, and that have asked for their customers’ consent to participate. Currently, customers of GEDmatch and FamilyTreeDNA are given a choice about whether to participate in these searches. But the companies provide little information about what those searches entail, and the opt-in settings are turned on by default.
Apparently that “need to opt in” you mentioned does exist, but it’s more like an opt out really.
Unlike 23andMe and Ancestry, which have kept their immense genetic databases unavailable to law enforcement without a court order, GEDmatch and FamilyTreeDNA are eager to cooperate.
Aha! So GEDmatch and FamilyTreeDNA did and are giving police DNA info upon request without court order, and 23andMe and Ancestry are giving police DNA info with court order only. We can now construct this matrix:
| GEDMatch FamilyTreeDNA | - | 23andMe | Ancestry | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| with optout | default | |||
| Maryland w/o court order | no | no | no | no |
| Maryland w/ court order | yes | yes | yes | yes |
| Montana w/o court order | no | yes | no | no |
| Montana w/ court order | yes | yes | yes | yes |
| other 48 states w/o court order | no | yes | no | no |
| other 48 states w/ court order | yes | yes | yes | yes |
You see it gets rather complicated… Rather than telling users to play 3SAT with the latest legal rules of their state, it’s easier to simply say “If you submit your DNA for sequencing, police might get it.”
In other cases, detectives might surreptitiously collect the DNA of a suspect’s relative by testing an object that the relative discarded in the trash. Maryland’s new law states that when police officers test the DNA of “third parties” — people other than the suspect — they must get consent in writing first, unless a judge approves deceptive collection.
Oh wow, what a case! Again, all this deception legal at the time, and still legal in 49 states without court order, and legal in Maryland with court order.
windy.com with a VPN in a private browser window. They can’t track you if they don’t know where you are!