It would tickle me absolutely pink if Mamdani was the catalyst to the creation of a third party.

So why don’t we use porn as a way to raise funds and get the word out there. Let’s invite populr beloved OF models to rallies to do meet and greets, let’s have leftist non profits do fund raising initves with models to sell them videos cheaper then their normal rates (the ycould write this off on their taxes to I know a lot of celebs do this)

Holy shit, there’s so much wrong with this that I don’t even want to touch it. No, porn should not be used as a replacement for proper mental health support, what the fuck is wrong with you?

There’s already services like Box.com that offer similar functionality for files.

As a suggestion, having an option to have the string deleted after it’s been accessed once would be nice as an extra layer of protection.

Not that I’d use this service for it, but I’ve had use cases for this sort of thing. It’s not so much about plausible deniability as OP wants to sell it as, but more about security. You send the locked link (or a PW protected file or whatever) via, say, email, and the password through a text message. Then, in order for the data to be stolen, the attacker would need access to both of those, rather than only one. It’s niche, but I’ve needed to do it for my job before, so I can at least see the point.

Makes privacy-focused service

Disallows access through VPNs

Mate…

The question wasn’t, “Could this be used as evidence?”, it was “Would this exonerate you?”

Maybe we’re answering two different questions, but I don’t see this being enough to exonerate anyone without some supporting evidence to go with it.

It’s like saying you couldn’t have committed a crime because your TV was on at the time; it seems too flimsy to even be usable if you didn’t have some other form of evidence supporting that it was actually you using it to go along with it. I’m not a lawyer, so it’s possible I’m totally wrong, but surely no competent lawyer would expect that to work and no judge would take that as evidence on its own merits.

It wouldn’t exonerate you, unless you could prove beyond a doubt that it was you using the phone. It’d be easy, if you were planning a murder, to give an accomplice your phone and have them use it all night to cover for you. It might be able to be used in conjunction with other evidence, though, to assist in your defense.

I have heard that small recurring donations are more helpful in general than larger one-time donations, so that’s what I tend to do - small recurring donations to services I use or creators whose content I consume. I tend to only do this when the service or content is primarily donation-supported, though.

This is also easier for me to manage, because it becomes a monthly recurring cost and I can see easily how much I’m spending on donations and adjust them as needed, whereas with larger one-time donations, I tend to lose track of how much the total is in a given period.

In short, vibe coding kick-started an era in which humans could make computers do new things, rather than the stuff they’d been hard-wired to do at the factory or through installed “software” (another word for “apps”).

Yeah, it sure is a good thing we have AI. Now real people can make computers do the things they want! It’s a novel idea that previously was just unthinkable.

User 1: “I’m having an issue with a service, has anyone else experienced this?”

User 2: “I do not use that service.” <-- This contributes nothing to the discussion, and makes User 2 sound like a prick. Don’t be like User 2.

Doesn’t actually matter.

A normally weighted die has a weight of 16.67% for each face. No matter what result the first die rolls, the second one has a 16.67% chance of rolling the number needed to total 7. Therefore, the average chance of a (total of) 7 is (16.67 + 16.67 + 16.67 + 16.67 + 16.67 + 16.67) / 6, or, 16.67%, or, 1 in 6.

Consider your example: Die #1 has the following weights:

• 1: 0%
• 2: 20%
• 3: 20%
• 4: 20%
• 5: 20%
• 6: 20%

In your example, if die 2 rolls a 6, there’s a 0% chance of a (total of) 7, instead of the normal 16.67%, but if die 2 rolls a 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, it has a 20% chance of totaling 7, instead of the normal 16.67%.

The average chance, therefore, is (0 + 20 + 20 + 20 + 20 + 20) / 6, or, 16.67%, or, 1 in 6.

Without having stats to back it up, it seems perfectly logical to me. Cishet men are the people conservative views benefit the most, and they’re the people folks like Andrew Tate specifically target. If I had to make a blind guess, I’d have said it’s cishet men, too.

The odds that the first die landed on the correct number are 1 in 6, though, so if you’re considering the throw of both dice as a whole, the chance is still 1 in 6 regardless of which die you throw first. (If you’re rolling the unweighted die first and then evaluating the chance of getting a 7 based on that outcome, then you’re correct.)

No, it wouldn’t, as long as only one of the dice is weighted.

If it has a 95% chance to roll a 6, and a 5% chance to roll any other number, or a 100% chance to roll a 6, or a 0% chance to roll a 6, the chance is still 1 in 6 to roll a 7 with two dice (where either zero or one is weighted).

Well, this is certainly not something I expected to see today. Not sure how I feel about it. Amazon has a great history of ruining things they touch.

That’s no planet. It’s a space station.

Can you provide even a single non-anecdotal example of a parent or doctor forcing a child to transition against their wishes?

No. Not at all. If all trans people who transitioned eventually chose to de-transition, it might, but that’s far from the case. This is itself actually a really common right-wing talking point and you aren’t doing yourself or anyone else any favors by bringing it up.

A hate crime is specifically crime that was motivated by hate for that group. Getting into a fight about something unrelated to that isn’t a hate crime, whether or not you knew they were a member of that group ahead of time.