Scanned the img with my NFC reader, can now walk in Merc Headquarters! Thanks!

It’s more about C&C, novel ways to get around firewall restrictions. Deploying a payload is the hard part, but having control over a large botnet without raising red flags is an art as well.

Halfway reading the OP I was like “I’m about to get rickrolled”, relieved before opening the comments but got 'rolled either way. 5/7

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Yeah heard many good things, mine could’ve been a fluke.

Spot on, G402 was the longest runner, but had issues on right and middle click. Steelseries rival didn’t last long at all.

Is it just me or does the middle click wear out more quickly than the others? Always figured they use a worse switch because they think people use them less. My last two failed the same way.

I’d be willing to pay that yearly fee for one game, just to have it on there and play when I want. Meanwhile I’ll be using my PSP, so good for handheld emulation.

They’ve also locked N64 and GBA behind an extra subscription model on the Switch. I’ve paid a month here and there for online support, I don’t want an entire year AND paying double to play one or two retro games.

Is this… loss?

As a European, I thought that was obvious from the first episode. So many stabs at a specific worldview, it’s obviously a criticism on modern politics.

He’s clearly taking the “but it’s better for human kind” stand, which I support with all I can. But academics can be guilty of gatekeeping and being pretentious, which I’ve seen by many lmao

Yep. I kept baconreader installed with an API patch so when I click on a reddit link I didn’t have to interact with their horrible interface, earlier this week I clicked one and the app still worked, now it doesn’t. When I was switching being able to continue using my app was a godsend, now I won’t even bother with changing my User-Agent lmao.

I’d say living for eternity doesn’t imply being conscious for that time.

Edit: Eternal recurrence could be a fun thing to witness

Reporting your conclusions doesn’t require being public. It means the larger group of people you release it to, the less bias you’ll have. Meaning in a closed organisation you have added biases of companies and marginally less people to prove you wrong, decreasing the overal quality of the conducted science. But still science, which by definition isn’t black and white.

For sure, and calling Elon a twat would be an insult to twats out there. But saying “if it’s not published it’s not science” to one of the greatest grifters while having to explain the nuance of what you tweeted is a big L in my book.

I agree though, we can argue open science is much better and more reliable. We can argue privatly conducting a study and doing all the steps that would be conducted by the academic community within one organisation leads to more biased and less reliable results. But it’s still science by its very definition, I’d even argue denying that is a bit disrespectful to all scientists doing so.

An organisation with fully independent teams tackling the same problems can absolutely be defined as peer review. Not in the traditional sense, but reviewing, confirming and replicating nonetheless. Following the scientific method is what makes something scientific, not the act of publishing.

You can argue of the merits of those papers, an organisation can never make public statements about private research. But saying that what their doing is not science, then you’re just needlessly gatekeeping.

I think the word you’re looking for is merit, publication which are cited and peer reviewed hold much more merit than those who don’t.

Science is a rigorous, systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world. 1

Nothing in this quote requires external publication. Following the scientific method, publishing, peer reviewing and reproduction can all happen internally in organisation using independent teams. Those private publications hold but a fraction of the merit of publications in recognised journals, but are science nonetheless.

Seems like the only difference is that if it’s public or not ie published. I think it becomes a matter of opinion then, because independent teams within the same organisation can absolutely peer review eachother, use completely different methodology to prove the same hypothesis and publish papers internally so it can be reproduced internally.

Science should be made public, but just because it’s not doesn’t mean it’s not science. When the organisation starts making public claims they should have to back that up along the official route, but they could just as well keep their findings a secret, use that secret to improve their working formula and make bank while doing that. Not calling their internal peer reviewed studies science just seems pretentious.