There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Jimmycrackcrack

@[email protected]

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

Jimmycrackcrack , (edited )

The guy is selling a book.

EDIT: I was sure I’d read this but on further research that doesn’t appear to be the case. I can’t find any reference that he’s writing or has written a book on the subject. I think what I read is he’s following a similar pattern to people over the decades who previously worked in some government position and make similarly understand claims to drum up attention and then publish a book.

Jimmycrackcrack ,

Given that they’re “Unidentified” aerial phenomena observed during the day to day operations of the US military I’m not particularly surprised congress isn’t informed about it every time this happens or “being kept in the dark” as some are putting it. Imagine if every time someone in the national guard looks through binoculars and thought they saw something but couldn’t figure out what it was, this was a matter brought before Congress who are supposed to be busy deliberating as democratically elected representatives. There’s a line where, without knowing particularly much about how something like this is supposed to operate, I can understand one might expect congress to be informed, enemy aircraft confirmed breaching airspace for example or even a UAP that is so strikingly unusal and incontrovertible that it might need to provoke a military response perhaps?

Claims as bold as this Grusch guy’s being withheld would definitely be something to be upset about but there’s so far little (in the public realm) with which to assess the likelihood that they’re anything but just claims.

I’ve also read that he appears to have been allowed by the Pentagon to go on record with his claims which would seem to weaken the case that he’s out here dropping bombshell secrets no one wanted us to hear. The claims tend to be careful as well, as he doesn’t claim personally to have been involved with any of the programs he said existed nor have seen any of the things supposedly recovered, merely saying he’s been made aware of them and seen some documents. He didn’t repeat all previous media claims in Congress when pressed to do so and has added different and new claims in different interviews.

Jimmycrackcrack ,

Those guys as far as I understand are reporting personal experiences with Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. So they probably really did encounter something unusual in the skies.

Jimmycrackcrack ,

Wasn’t that a BBC article? The wording is very familiar as well the exact scenario.

what are .webp files and why has my online experience been plagued by them?

I don’t know what a .webp file is but I don’t like it. They’re like a filthy prank version of the image/gif you’re looking for. They make you jump through all these hoops to find the original versions of the files that you can actually do anything with....

Jimmycrackcrack ,

The guy clearly isn’t familiar with a lot of image formats and is trying to find out about them by asking, a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and in a special community called no stupid questions, no less.

You don’t need to call anyone a gullible fool and furthermore you’ve not actually helped to answer the question “what is webp”, at all. What are you trying to achieve with this pointless aggression? If you wanted one less “gullible fool” you’d have to answer the question and educate, at best you’ve sown confusion.

Jimmycrackcrack ,

To what end? They were mercenary group operating under Moscow’s auspices and Belarus is friendly and already being used as a staging post. If they wanted them there they’d just tell them to go there. This makes them look weak and drew troops out of Ukraine while they’re actively trying to invade it.

Jimmycrackcrack ,

We got a jabberrer!

Jimmycrackcrack ,

Nah that’s for amateurs what you really need is an elite team who can type very fast and if you’re enterprise is really worth it’s salt it’ll have a few of these guys and that way you can have 2 or if they’re really good 3 to a keyboard at a time. With their combined speed they’ll have setup a Visual Basic GUI and hacked your cyberattacker’s IP in no time. With the attack stopped in a minute at most they’ll have surveillance camera tape footage available for enhancement and from that the basement dweller’s abode by lunchtime. The constabulary will be knocking down their door so fast they’ll never smash their monitor in time to get rid of the evidence.

Jimmycrackcrack ,

I feel like chart GPT would probably handle that better than most of us anyway

Jimmycrackcrack ,

Man this situation is going to get real fucked up from here on out

Jimmycrackcrack ,

I think what’s really coming through in recent times aided well by Musk, is how profoundly average these billionaire geniuses really are, despite their extraordinary lives.

This wouldn’t be such a bad thing, after all, you or I aren’t typically judged in the same way for being just ordinary and it might even be comforting that they’re just people after all, but the problem is that we’ve geared up society in such a way where they’re basically king’s (and I choose Kings, not Queens deliberately).

The positions they hold demand great people, even a good person will not suffice. If we’re to have these demi-gods profoundly influencing society they’d better be something special. In the past, there was an idea cultivated that royalty were divine representatives, in the modern context they create a similar myth of genius expertise that is manifest and evident because of their wealth, but sadly the reality appears to be that they’re special for being wealthy, not wealthy because they’re special.

This doesn’t bode well in a society that allows billionaires to exist.

Jimmycrackcrack ,

Or get someone to give you the jist of those manuals done you can’t read

Jimmycrackcrack ,

I’m gathering that this image is referencing star trek but I haven’t watched a lot of it. Which particular episode is this, what you’re talking about sounds interesting.

Jimmycrackcrack ,

Hey I think they’re basically supporting what you’re saying with a kind of rueful sarcasm. As in “not only are you correct that the we’re in a shitty state of things, but worse still it’s been that way for a long time.”

You can't uninstall this software without being forced to participate in their survey (lemmy.world)

I initially only installed “Comodo Firewall” but for some reason they also installed a “Comodo Dragon Browser”, which I did not consent to. I always choose the “advanced” installation to uncheck bloatware, but in this case there was none and when you try to uninstall the browser, they force you to participate in...

Jimmycrackcrack ,

It’s Mother’s Day

LG to offer subscriptions for already purchased appliances and televisions, evolving into a provider for “Home as a Service” (www.theregister.com)

LG to offer subscriptions for already purchased appliances and televisions, evolving into a provider for “Home as a Service”::Subscription fatigue is a thing and regulators are circling, but Korean giant reckons you’re ready to cough up after buying hardware

Jimmycrackcrack ,

Hard pass

Jimmycrackcrack ,

Suing can be difficult and risky and portracted, depending on the country there will hopefully be an actual government body for dealing with exactly this kind of thing that you can complain to and they’ll investigate. Most businesses will shit their pants if you tell them that they must pay you or you will lodge a complaint with such a body and you can call their bluff. If they don’t back down even then, then lodge the complaint as there’s nothing to lose. You could try suing after that too, if unsatisfied with the result, though I don’t know if the unsatisfactory outcome of the complaint could prejudice that.

In Australia, that entity would be the Fair work Ombudsman. Not sure what that might be in other countries. I believe they can issue fines and they’ll take people to court for you if they think they have reasonable enough chance of success.

Jimmycrackcrack ,

I saw a British comedian do this bit some years back. Still great appreciate seeing it in frog based format.

How to de-radicalize my mom's youtube algorithm?

She’s almost 70, spend all day watching q-anon style of videos (but in Spanish) and every day she’s anguished about something new, last week was asking us to start digging a nuclear shelter because Russia was dropped a nuclear bomb over Ukraine. Before that she was begging us to install reinforced doors because the...

Jimmycrackcrack ,

Well yeh but, the concern is unintended consequences which sounds entirely likely. It’s kind of fucked up to even be considering doing this to an adult, entirely entitled to their own choice of viewing habits, without their knowledge and by surreptitious use of their account and it’s only dubiously ethical because it’s an act of kindness against machine generated manipulation of a far more insidious nature and for far less than altruistic reasons.

You’d hardly want it to backfire after taking this step. By posing this question the OP obviously already considers the pseudo cult his Mum’s getting sucked in to be a bad thing so it doesn’t need further signalling but being sure to do it carefully with an eye on the actual effect is probably wise or the whole endeavour would be a waste and might push her further in to the waiting arms of lunatics and charlatans.

Jimmycrackcrack ,

What is more mildly infuriating than reading a post complaining about someone else complaining? Adding another level!

I don’t know, maybe a post complaining about people complaining about people complaining? Seriously though I didn’t notice such posts. I’ve only seen level 1 of this rabbit hole so far with people complaining about Reddit users ruining their little club and that seemed to peter out mostly over the past 2 weeks.

Jimmycrackcrack ,

Extradited man: “What are you gonna do? Extradite me?”

I think the average person just simply doesn't care about their privacy.

In some of the music communities I’m in the content creators are already telling their userbase to go follow them on threads. They’re all talking about some kind of beef between Elon and Mark and the possibility of a boxing match… Mark was right to call the people he’s leaching off of fucking idiots.

Jimmycrackcrack ,

I often think this as well, however I take the continual attempts at nearly every possible turn to syphon yet more personal info as a sign at least someone doesn’t have it yet and wants it and maybe I can stop them getting it and also I think these operations that suck up and sell or otherwise exploit your data need a continuous flow rather than simply a finite set.

What they have is probably useful but actually to a certain extent it probably isn’t of much use without more data constantly coming in. Organisations like Google or Facebook would have such a large proportion of the planet represented in some form in their databases that it that were enough it’d basically be mission accomplished and they’d have no growth opportunities. I can probably never really know, but it looks like they need you to keep interacting with their services to maintain useful profiles of you and the rest of their hoardes and if they didn’t get it your data would be essentially stale at after time.

Jimmycrackcrack , (edited )

It should be noted that it doesn’t actually say anywhere that this 👍 emoji, had been used by this farmer to signal assent to contracts previously. What it does say in the article, is that they’d previously received contracts in this way via text before and fulfilled them.

However, personally I don’t think that really makes a lot of difference, maybe some but not a lot. This court decision is not exactly a ruling that emojis are signatures so much as it’s upholding the idea that there are forms of contract acceptance other than the traditional signing of a written contract and these exist for exactly reasons like these and to protect people from bad faith acceptance of contracts with the later intention to deny such acceptance.

Without the prior context of previous texts with or without emoji confirmation, this mightn’t have stood, but with it, it makes perfect sense. In the absence of a more clear cut and binding form of acceptance that would normally settle such a matter more easily like a witnessed signature on some physical paper, the court has to use the behaviour of the people involved and this farmer behaved in a way very similar to both their own previous behaviour that indeed had signalled contract acceptance as well as a commonly understood 3rd party indication of assent. Even if the farmer’s own explanation of miscommunication were true, and they were just signalling that they’d seen the contract, sure it sucks for them, but it’s their fault for both establishing a pattern where these types of important negotiations were conducted in this manner and also somehow failing to account for common understanding. It might seem unfair to be on the hook for something just because you thought an emoji meant something else, but imagine how much it sucks to deal with someone who’s understanding of common forms of communication is some separate and arcane private interpretation totally unbeknownst to you and when they use well understood signals of assent they actually meant something totally different. “Oh, I guess I should have known” hmmmm.

Maybe for an $82000 contract they should have taken the time to be a little more clear-headed in their communication in which case they might have realised how ambiguous it might be to respond with something they think means “YES I’ve received your contract” in the context where only the YES portion might actually be what’s heard. They certainly understood it was some kind of confirmation even if not what they meant and they did nothing to clarify what they were confirming. He said he didn’t have time to look at the contract and just seems to have quickly responded with this but frankly that’s pretty flippant behaviour when discussing contracts. For example, they didn’t later review the contract when they did have time and then say “thank you but after reviewing the contract I’ve decided to decline” which, if delivered in a reasonably timely manner might have made a world of difference, but instead they simply didn’t fulfill the contract 8 months later. If previously they hadn’t used this emoji to signal assent, then if anything it should have seemed an even more encouraging sign since previously simply receiving the contract via text had been enough before and now he’s doing that and saying “👍”.

Without the ability for such additional context to be considered that truly would open up floodgates for people to weasel out of obligations by subverting the intent of law by trying to use the letter of it. Imagine if someone hired you, sent you a contract with agreed rates, discussed a job with you sent communication back and forth during your employment and granted you access to the work site day in and day out and then at the end of the contract announced that you should have paid attention to the fact that although a contract was sent they didn’t actually sign it and so technically you were never really hired and were just volunteering this whole time. It’d be very important for all the surrounding context to be able to stand in for and legally imply contract acceptance or there’d be all manner of fuckery.

Jimmycrackcrack ,

I feel like those supply chain problems making everything inpossi tongetnand super expensive are about to get even worse.

Jimmycrackcrack ,

Haha I really need to proofread better. My phone screen is cracked to shit and a lot of stuff gets miss-typed but for some reason it seems to be 10 times worse here on Lemmy. It doesn’t really make sense because I’d assume the keyboard side of things in Android and the app receiving keyboard input were pretty separate but I seem to make a whole lot more mistakes on my Lemmy comments and I only notice them after I’ve posted which is super annoying because posting takes ages and editing takes equally as long.

Maybe it’s just the UK displays the text smaller or in such a way as I’m just worse at picking up errors before posting.

Jimmycrackcrack , (edited )

Considering you’re right that that’s exactly what is happening here I can’t push this too hard, but I definitely think it’s very common and standard English to say “what’s 17.21 metres in feet?” and of course very common especially in metric countries to abbreivate metres to m. It’s also a logically odd request to want to know what 17.21 million inches are in feet with no “to” or even “in” (the in having been used up here by being assumed to mean inches) to give the query meaning. That would read as “17.21 million inches feet”.

Google is capable of supplying a unit conversion answer for you with the “in” construction for the query “17km in miles” for example so it understands “in” in the way many of us would expect it to but weirdly assumed that ‘in’ meant inches and that the query is constructed with no grammatical indication that a conversion is even being requested which is a bit of a funny leap. It’s understandable that this might perhaps not have been anticipated exactly, in as much as perhaps it’s not surprising that it doesn’t somehow have the capacity to evaluate the likelihood of such a request over the more “common sense” interpretation but whether or not it’s understandable that this mightn’t have been foreseen I think we could reasonably call the resulting interpretation as undesireable for almost all human beings that might ever use this tool and it’s probably fair to call it a bug in that sense.

Jimmycrackcrack ,

Definitely essential. I’m on Connect for Lemmy, it does it. Jerboa did too but that app started to get a bit broken in a recent update and I moved on. Liking this one better. I hear wefwef mentioned a lot though I couldn’t see on f-droid or even the play store. Are people just downloading an APK?

Jimmycrackcrack ,

Far from not a peep, China mention their “unequal treaties” and the “century if humiliation” a lot, it’s a rallying cry and something they would definitely use to bolster the case they’re making here. What did you mean by this?

Jimmycrackcrack ,

Yeh nothing to do with police murdering teenagers for traffick violations

Jimmycrackcrack ,

I’m not understanding the contradiction here. They’re saying it was a spy balloon for spying but that it failed at its task. Not sure how true that is, no way for me to tell but there’s no inherent paradox here.

Jimmycrackcrack ,

That part of the story seems yet to be cited. Going by the article accompanying the post title, there’s no such admission. Manufacturing international incidents for political reasons is not a new thing and not new to the US either , but purely on grounds of reading comprehension alone there’s no contradiction here and no admission of anything either, as a matter of fact the claim the US is making is supposed to bolster their position by claiming the balloon was unable to spy on them despite best efforts. The veracity of the claim is another matter.

Jimmycrackcrack ,

Thanks. You should post that article too, seems fuller and links to a Washington Post article with a little more detail as well. Frankly I’d largely forgotten about the whole balloon incident as the whole thing at the time was a confusing mess of misinformation and internal and external posturing from Washing and Beijing as well that made whatever publicly available truth that could be gleaned so warped that most of the nuance was lost in my mind and I just mentally filed it under “what the fuck?”

I would maintain though that you seem to trying to put together a “gotcha!” narrative about the US perspective on the matter using source material that doesn’t really paint that picture. The shifting and changing story wrapped up in geopolitical intrigue has a whiff to it for sure but no one seems to be “admitting” anything in the any of what you linked. The weird thing about the idea that anyone is admitting something, is that all of the “admissions” are part of a set of claims that the US would want to promulgate and indeed are.

They are seeking maximum political advantage from this balloon incident, so they say it was a spy balloon, because they want China to appear to be doing wrong by spying, this necessarily means saying they somehow allowed a spy balloon that everybody could see with the naked eye and which was apparently very dangerous to national security to just drift unchecked in to their airspace and see all manner of sensitive things, so they say they tracked it from that start because they’re too compotent to let something like this pass them by, oh and also it didn’t really manage to spy on them because they “took steps” and therefore it didn’t transmit any intelligence. The story seems iffy but to believe it would be to buy in to the official preferred narrative offered by Washington, not a bunch of leaked admissions they were hoping to keep on the down-low

The idea of it drifting accidentally from an originally more limited but still surveillance related mission is an interesting twist to the story, I guess either because it’s what really seems to have happened or maybe because it provides a kind of a safety valve for them to ratchet up tensions whilst still kind of not directly accusing Beijing in case things start to get a little too hot in the diplomatic realm and they need to cool things down. This helps them get out of a tangle but still paint China as incompetent spies who accidentally sent the balloon on a more obvious course where it would be seen and intercepted, but who essentially didn’t mean to be quite so bold and had only more limited intentions.

Jimmycrackcrack ,

That’s my point. The original poster is trying to draw a line between statements that the balloon was a spying device and later statements that it did not collect intelligence while it transited over US territory as evidence that it wasn’t a spying device and that the former of those statements is therefore inherently a lie. My take, without assessing the truthfulness of the claims, is that the linked articles do not support such a conclusion. One can claim the device was for spying and that it also didn’t collect intelligence without contradiction because the claim is that it failed to collect intelligence, not that it did not intend to do so in the first place.

Jimmycrackcrack ,

I think it’s just this guy and then other posts making reference to his weird antics

Jimmycrackcrack ,

The sites don’t mention the AI authorship, so you go there to read an article, likely one you found linked elsewhere, only to be baffled by the ramblings.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •