Maybe it should just say “this means your intelligence is below average”. I genuinely think someone with <80 IQ would have a very low chance of understanding the text as presented in the screenshot.

Stupid people are people with human rights too, and they should be considered with empathy when building a society. That should be particularly obvious to a site that performs IQ tests. For every person with an IQ above 100, there’s a person below.

Robots.txt is used to prevent search engines like google from fetching and adding specific pages on your web server to their search index.

What are you asking here? Who do you want to stop from doing what with your manuscript?

It is, but this here is just YouTube being retarded.

I suspect it was part of some stupid copy protection scheme.

Because nothing has changed since then, except for the worse.

Buddha. I get to reach Nirvana right after this form.

Adobe has no scruples.

I used to work for a full-disk encryption vendor in the 2000s, and one customer had an issue where the machine would BSOD sometimes if both our product and Adobe Acrobat were installed. It seemed a mystery or just a red herring - what on Earth did Acrobat do that could trigger a kernel-mode crash?

Turned out that every hour or so, Acrobat would be reading and writing back the master boot record (containing the OS bootstrap code and partition table) on the primary hard drive. The bug was ours (to unlock the hard drive keys at boot we had to put different data there and redirect I/O after Windows started, and this redirection code would crash once in a blue moon), but Adobe has no business mucking about with this extremely sensitive data.

I read this from the start with the mind that it’s probably an April fool’s joke, but not once did I see any indication to exaggerate or build up to a humorous absurdness. It’s just a long article that could be true but isn’t. Stupid and a waste of time.

“Innocent until proven guilty” is about not prematurely judging when you don’t know the facts. It’s not about defending rapists - it’s about defending people who are possibly not rapists.

All of these are singular examples of events that are presumably violations of existing law, except the last frame which is about changing policy and affects the state’s position on all events in the future. They are not the same.

And also, the vast majority of men are in favor of criminalizing rape of any kind.

But why is it human nature to put a bench right where people are walking. It’s like people in charge get off on creating obstacles for the common man just to feel powerful.