Your security is only as good as the weakest link, which is usually people. If your password policy encourages users to stick a note to their screen then your weakest link is anyone in the office deciding to take a selfie or joining a call with their camera on. Best practices balance security with what users are actually willing to do.
Good luck remembering them all, also change them all every 30 days, so here are my secrets.
Password expiry hasn’t been considered best practice for a long time (must be at least a decade now?) largely because of the other points you mentioned; it leads to weak easily memorable passwords written somewhere easily accessible. Even when it was considered good 30 days would have been an unusually short time.
Current advice is to change passwords whenever there’s a chance it’s been compromised, not on a schedule.
I’m not sure I follow your logic here. You believe you’ll come into contact with other people’s piss and shit less often when people don’t wash their hands?
Urine isn’t sterile. While it’s true that paper towels are better than dryers, drying your hands (even with a dryer) is better than not drying. Washing your hands is, obviously, better than not washing your hands.
If you don’t wash your hands you’re already in the worst case. It makes no sense to complain about the methods of drying available.
I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that language models are effective lie detectors, it’s very widely known that LLMs have no concept of truth and hallucinate constantly.
And that’s before we even get into inherent biases and moral judgements required for any form of truth detection.
Now what indeed? You’re still paying all the maintenance fees but now you’re not generating regular income, and you’re at the mercy of your government’s empty home laws. Where I am I believe that’s currently just paying double taxes, but it’s also entirely possible for government to pass more regulations if there’s a lot of unused housing they need.
To me that seems like a demonstration of why it would work. Allowing the people living there to buy the house from the government moved housing from the hands of government into private ownership. Allowing the people living there to buy the home from a corporate landlord will remove housing from corporate landlords, which is exactly what’s needed if we want people to be able to afford housing. People buying the home they live in from their landlord won’t remove council housing.
It’ll probably drive down house prices but that’s kind of the point. As a private homeowner I’d lose out on some potential money if I ever moved so that’s not ideal, but that’s a fair “loss” if it means other people can afford somewhere to live.
My gut reaction is that this won’t work long-term. Users on youtube often point to specific timestamps in a video in comments or link to specific timestamps when sharing videos, meaning there needs to be some way to identify the timestamp excluding ads. And if there’s a way to do that there’s a way to detect ads.
Of course, there’s always the chance they just scrap these features despite how useful they are and how commonly they’re used; they’ve done similar before.
If someone said they were concerned about their sugar intake would you tell them to just stop eating entirely? It’s possible to take steps towards privacy-friendly services without cutting yourself off from the modern world in the same way as you can cut back on sugar and still eat food.
You absolutely do not need to “burn all your devices” to improve your privacy, suggesting so is unhelpful at best.
Have you considered events from their perspective? From what you’ve described, they were told to wait until a notification was sent, then they were given a notification with the instruction “send this”. If it was me my first thought would absolutely be that that’s the notification to be sent, the only reason I’d hesitate is because those sort of communications are well outside my job description.
The reason they sent the product afterwards is obvious; they were told to send them after the notification was sent, and they had sent the notification.
From what you’ve described, you are communicating incredibly poorly then blaming your workers for misunderstanding.
Why do you people do this? This isn’t !askbots@lemmy.world.
What? It’s called a licensing agreement for a reason; both parties must agree. It’s like any other written contract, if you never agreed to it you are not bound by it’s rules. That’s simply a fact, choosing to disagree with that is like choosing to disagree that two comes after one. You’re just wrong.
You’re entirely missing the point; you are under no obligation to follow the rules for a licence you did not agree to. The CC licence restrictions apply only to those who use that licence to use your work.
I licence a work to Alice for display in one commercial location only. I licence the same work to Bob for display non-commercially, who then displays it in a different location. Charlie has no licence, but reproduces part of the work using fair use doctrine as part of a paid review. Alice’s use breaches Bob’s licence; Alice did not agree to those terms so is not in breach of copyright. Bob’s use breaches Alice’s licence; Bob did not agree to those terms so is not in breach of copyright. Charlie’s use breaches both licences; Charlie does not need a licence at all so is not in breach of copyright.
By using one of our public licenses, a licensor grants the public permission to use the licensed material under specified terms and conditions. If the licensor’s permission is not necessary for any reason–for example, because of any applicable exception or limitation to copyright–then that use is not regulated by the license. Our licenses grant only permissions under copyright and certain other rights that a licensor has authority to grant.
It says it right there in plain English, it only grants copyright permission where they need your permission anyway. The restrictions are to the additional rights you grant, it does not revoke other parties’ already existing rights unless they invoke this licence to use your work. The licence does not restrict commercial use for people not invoking the licence. It’s incredibly unlikely anyone “fears” you giving them more rights.
If you keep hearing the same arguments maybe you should consider what they’re saying instead of instantly dismissing them as astroturfers for disagreeing with you? Do any of them actually complain about the fact you’re licencing your content or are they complaining that you’re saying the licence does something it does not do?
As for “what business it is” of mine; this is a public forum. If you’re not ready to defend yourself don’t spread misinformation.
People calling you out for being wrong isn’t astroturfing. It’s not an anti-AI licence and by definition does not restrict use (including AI-related) more than standard automatic copyright.
The problem with your argument is everyone’s only telling you exactly what your own link also says; the licence only applies if someone needs your permission anyway. If they don’t need permission the licence doesn’t matter. You don’t need to be a lawyer, you only need to be literate.
If the licensor’s permission is not necessary for any reason–for example, because of any applicable exception or limitation to copyright–then that use is not regulated by the license.
And all that’s still ignoring the fact you’re putting a higher bar to refute the claim than to make it in the first place which is nonsense; anything which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
It’s ironic because you demand someone be a lawyer to refute an obviously incorrect claim made by a non-lawyer. If you consider me answering the question you asked directly of me “irony” then I suppose I can see how you might consider that comment ironic.
It’s definitely worth noting that you’ve attempted to shift the topic well away from the absurdity of using an open licence to do the opposite of what licences do and instead onto the topic of who is a lawyer and the definition of irony.
Ironic, considering you are undoubtedly not a lawyer and have evidently never even dealt with copyright issues.
CC licences are handy copyleft licences to allow others to use your work with minimal effort. Using them to restrict what others can do is a fundamental misunderstanding of how copyright works. If you want to restrict others’ use of your work copyright already handles that, a licence can only be more permissive than default copyright law. You can sign a contract with another party if you want to further restrict their use of your work, but you’ll generally also have to give them something in return for the contract to be valid (known as “consideration”). If you wish to do so you can include a copyright notice (eg “Copyright © 2024 onlinepersona. All rights reserved.”) but that hasn’t been a requirement for a long time.
Adding a CC link and falsely claiming it’s an anti-AI licence is misinformation and undoubtedly does add confusion.
But ‘cold’ and ‘heated’ are bad. People are weird about temperature.