You’ve got a naive definition of ‘normal’.

I’d say that the vast majority of people who stumble across a curated Andrew Tate clip and think that the very carefully selected soundbite resonates with them are “normal.”

That’s the issue with deeply personalized targeted marketing. People get presented with a representation of something that isn’t accurate. Instead, it’s tightly tailored to be agreeable, which can result in “normal” people forming positive sentiments towards things that they’d absolutely disagree with if they were presented with a truthful representation.

If someone is swayed by instructions to kill themselves, they are, be definition, consuming content they desire.

That’s a bad argument. Marketing is one thing, manipulation is totally different.

There’s nothing specifically wrong with marketing in general, but marketers with access to enormous amounts of private information blur the line between advertising and manipulation. Using people’s private information to each individual exactly what they want to hear about a candidate without regard to the truth is absolutely something that we should be concerned about.

You’ve thoroughly demonstrated yourself to be entirely devoid of any real knowledge or experience in this area, and yet you’re continuing to pontificate. You’re clearly enjoying the sensation of having an audience to which you can monologue from a place of ignorance ad nauseam, and I’m depriving you of that. Trust me, you may not be intelligent enough to tell, but I’m doing you a favor. Like averting my eyes when the mentally ill transient defecates himself on the streets. He may not know it, but it’s a mercy not to observe someone in such a state.

Please, feel free to continue. And I’ll continue doing you the kindness of allowing you the uninterrupted company of the only person ignorant enough to think any of your unfounded claims are intelligent.

Not gonna read all that lol you are a goofy little guy aren’t ya.

At its root, it is a TEST

No, at its root, this is an educational article meant to teach about recognizing internet scams. It includes a quiz designed to help you determine your natural reaction to many popular scams, along with information about best practices for how to identify them.

This differs from a test, which is designed to quantify your current knowledge on a topic. Sure, the article used a quiz as a teaching aid, but the results of the quiz aren’t the point and don’t matter. Which makes it super weird how you and others are getting so butthurt about thinking you deserved a perfect score, but we’re robbed by an unfair test.

Unless specified any TEST provides in the question the information to determine the answer

This is a foolish assumption outside of the context of academic examinations. There’s no reason to assume that’s a requirement on an online quiz, where many of the explanations of the answers specifically tell you that the best way to identify some scams is to verify information with authoritative sources.

You and I both know if we create a test phishing email with no mistakes, it’s not a failure if people click on it. It’s a failure on our part for creating a BAD TEST.

The best test phishing emails realistically emulate actual phishing emails. Intentionally adding errors only serves to train employees to catch bad phishing attacks. Regardless, I’m not sure what your point is, since every one of the scam examples here does contain either verifiably false information, or obvious scam indicators.

The entire concept of reparations for slavery is that non-black people will be forced to pay black people money, either as a one time lump-sum payment, or an open-ended pseudo-UBI. Some suggestions include mandated documentation of ancestral slabery, but the most popular ones don’t. The vehicle for this payment would be either increased taxes, or redirection of taxes.

If you’re not talking about race-based redistribution of wealth, you’re not talking about ‘reparations,’ which is what this thread is about.

This is hard for me to commit to an opinion on. I totally understand the argument that systemic injustices of the past have impacts today on the opportunities presented to descendants of affected individuals, therefore proactive steps are required to achieve equity. But solutions like requiring blanket reparations from one race to another seem to take for granted that everyone of the first race has been equally privileged by historical injustices, while everyone of the second race has been equally disadvantaged.

This obviously isn’t true. People of color are disproportionately likely to be disadvantaged, but there are people of color who lead highly privileged lives, and there are white people who are highly disadvantaged due to coming from low socioeconomic class, poor health, lack of access to education, etc.

The concept of reparations being paid on a basis of race necessarily involves the government forcing disadvantaged white, Asian, Latino, and other non-black people to become more institutionally disadvantaged, so that a group that contains highly privileged people of color can become more economically advantaged.

Something absolutely needs to be done, we need to be actively fighting for equity, but it’s hard for me to accept an argument that that should be done on the basis of race instead of addressing the causes of class-based inequality that will benefit disadvantaged black people along with disadvantaged people of other races.

For example, instead of seeking to improve the intergenerational income mobility of POCs in a system that restricts the income mobility of those without wealthy parents, we should fix the system and ensure a level playing field between someone who is born to high-school drop outs, and someone who was born to Ivy League graduates.

Yeah, totally respect your opinion, but I emphatically disagree with it. The goal of what’s being discussed here isn’t to maximize production for the sake of shareholders, it’s to maximize quality of life for employees. To that end, five six-hour days are worse than four 8-to-10-hour days.

If I start work at 8 and get off work at 2:30 or 3, I still can’t start my camping trip a day early, or spend the day at the water park with my kids. I still have to give up n x 10 hours of my life, where n is my commute time, assume I work in-office.

I would much rather work until 630 Monday through Thursday, and have an extra day where full-day activities are possible every week. That’s worth more to me than 10 extra hours per week of after-work time.

I’m the CEO of an anti-phishing training corporation that services multiple Fortune 500 companies and has a yearly revenue of over 10m USD (I can also share unverified credentials to make myself seem more credible).

Someone could potentially build a website that makes their phishing attempt seem more credible, and maybe they could get that website ranked highly on Google (even though that is far from straightforward for a website presenting fraudulent information to do), but that’s a total red herring. The article didn’t recommend that people Google for a single random website that confirms the questionable information, the recommendation was that you should check multiple authoritative sources.

You are absolutely wrong. Not surprising that you’re (ostensibly) able to scam the technologically illiterate with such bad information, a little ironic that your scam involves getting them to think that you’re teaching them how to avoid scams.

Only thing keeping on my disk is fusion360, so annoying to have to deal with booting into windows just to use a single piece of software.

I haven’t had this happen in years, maybe it’s my config? I’m using GPT on a UEFI system (in UEFI mode), with systemd-boot.

I do remember having tons of issues back when I was using grub on an MBR system using legacy bios emulation.

The correct thing to do if you got that email would be to try to verify the information that it presents. Is Geek Squad Academy a real thing? How much does their antivirus cost?

Which is exactly what the article says to do, and what you should have done before answering the question. Of course the getting the questions right doesn’t matter, but the question and explanation are an excellent example of what they’re trying to teach.

Also, the grammar was just a little bit funky in that email. Could just be that the geek squad email writer has funky grammar, but it’s definitely a red flag that should make you want to double check the info in the email.

You (and half the people in this thread) are totally missing the point here.

No where does the article say that you’re supposed to be able to tell if it’s a scam or not just by looking at it. In fact, in multiple places it says that you’ve got to Google use a credible source to externally verify some information to determine that some of the examples are scams.

The point of the article is to teach people how to recognize scams, it would be totally useless if it imposed the constraint that you can’t look for context. If you’re actually trying to recognize scams IRL, you should be doing exactly what the article says and looking for authoritative corroboration of any information in the potential scam.

The wording is a little misleading. A “white noise” podcast isn’t just 80 hours of TV static, it might be a recording of a cafe, a bus station, nature, a storm, etc. not something that’s just generated on-device, meaning it’s gotta be streamed.

Oh yikes sorry for the hostility, I definitely did mix you up with OP.

I was a dedicated Android user from the Galaxy S2 to the Pixel 3, and was on Google phones since the nexus 5. I always had my phone rooted, and until it became too inconvenient, I was really into ROM hopping.

When I got the nexus 5, I vowed not to get another Samsung phone because of how hard they were making it to unlock your bootloader. Then on the pixel 3, Safety Net kept realizing I was rooted and breaking the apps I needed for work, and I realized I was having to plug my phone into my computer to fix things way more than I wanted to. I ended up just running stock because I didn’t want to worry about not being able to log into my mobile banking when I was out of the house.

When I was looking at replacing my pixel 3, it was clear that Google was no longer as root friendly as they once were, so I started looking at other Android options. I wasn’t impressed. It occurred to me that the main reason I’d always avoided Apple was because of the lack of root support

So I went out on a limb and got the iPhone 12 Pro, and to my surprise, I loved it. If you’ve already accepted the idea of leaving the FW stock, it’s perfect. I get updates the day they roll out, the hardware is so much nicer than anything I’ve seen from Android (that’s partially subjective), the software/hardware integration is so good that it blows me away. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen so much as a UI stutter, I still get a solid 2 days/two nights of battery life on a >2 year old phone. The 3rd party apps are more consistently high-quality, and the native apps actually feel consistent and thought out, rather than feeling like the work of 10 different teams throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. And a lot of people don’t care about this, but it’s a huge deal to me; Google is an ad-tech company that sells user data to advertisers. Apple is a hardware company that sells devices to users. The difference in their policies on user privacy are stark, which means I no longer have to worry about every website I visit knowing what prescriptions I’m taking.

Siri is useless, especially compared to Google assistant. Notifications are better on Android. Ecosystem integration is a huge selling point for Apple products, IT really can’t be overstated how well things work together, but that only matters if you are open to owning an Apple Watch, AirPods, AirTags, an iPad and a MacBook. I miss the *variety * of apps on the Play Store, especially free ones.

I’m not a loyalist for either team, they’ve each got pros and cons, but my best effort at an objective analysis makes me feel that the iPhone is a lot better of a fit for someone like me.

Someone has invested, the solution is tiling window managers.

As 217 people have told you in this thread, tiling window managers allow you keep all your windows full screen if you want.

Sounds like your screen is too close to your face.

Yeah, definitely a matter of workflow and personal preference. Nobody wants to convert anyone else, you just ask why people use tiling WM, and people are answering.

why tile windows at all

I can answer that pretty comfortably. There are two main reasons, the first is that it’s very common to have to look at two things at once. If I’m taking notes while reading something complicated, or writing some complex code while referencing the documentation, or tweaking CSS rules while looking at the page I’m working on, it’s just way too disruptive to constantly have to switch windows.

The second main reason (for me) is that a lot of the time, the content of a single window is too small to make use of the space on your monitor. In those cases, if I have something else I’m working on and it’s also small, I’ll tile them. It might be easy to toggle between windows with a hotkey, but it’s strictly easier to not have to toggle, and just move your eyes over. Peripheral vision means that you don’t entirely lose the context of either window. When you’re ready to switch back to the one you just left, you don’t have to touch anything, and you don’t have to wait for the window to render to visually locate where you left off.

If you’re only actively using one window at a time, that makes sense, but alt+tabbing through a stack of 8 open applications to go back and forth between something you’re working on and something you’re closely referencing sucks. If your primary workflow for a computer involves that, I honestly don’t understand how someone can live without tiling.