• 0 Posts
  • 30 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 14th, 2023

help-circle
  • A lot of third party integrations to improve accessibility for visually or physically impaired users were caught up in the restrictions designed to destroy RIF Apollo etc. Spez vaguely said reddit would fix that, but it basically just resulted in improvements to base reddit for those users thrown into the bottom of a low priority dev list never to see the light of day.



  • You mention your discover weekly. Do you know how that algorithm works? It suggests songs that you have not played, that other people who played songs that you played. It’s the same positive feedback loop. It’s songs already popular that it promotes to be played more. Which makes them more popular so it recommends them more. And thus you end up with the most steamed artists only making 15% of the content.

    Does it work? Passably. For the majority, mostly generic listeners. Is it a fair way to structure a platform and to dispense payments? No. A great business model however.






  • Have some savings in case of emergency. A few thousand at least.

    Work out a budget. What you earn, minus your bills + 10%, is the money you have for fun. The 10% helps prevent bill shock. Personally, I record the amount of the last four bills and average them then add the 10%. Seems to work.

    Inherit or buy quality cookware and learn how to cook. Quality isn’t necessarily expensive. And good cooking is cheaper and healthier than anything else. At the start doing meal prep recipes to cover a week would be good.











  • “Learn more about how to keep yourself safe by testing your instincts below and guessing whether each instance is a scam, using real-life examples.”

    Distinctly not saying to research online and verify information.

    As for tests outside academia, such as this one, even a bone headed dunce understands tests test the knowledge and ability you have, and not what you google online. To the point that if a test allows you to use other sources, that is always specifically stated. So that normal, reasonable people do not treat it as a normal, reasonable test, and complete it with their inherent knowledge and ability. I’m sorry you missed this valuable and important life lesson in learning. Explaining in the answers that you should have known to use outside sources is exactly as I have stated; 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.”

    I’m glad as a CEO you don’t actually produce any content for your company. Emulating phishing emails means including the errors that are in phishing emails. Those are the ways you train people to recognise a phishing email. If you don’t include the errors then the only true verification of a genuine/phishing email is verifying with the purported sender by another communication channel. Not at all an effective policy, I’m sure you would agree.

    No one’s butt hurt here. Treating a genuine email with caution and wariness is inherent good phishing awareness behaviour. If you can pull your vacuous head out of your voluminous arse for a moment, you will realise that once again, this is a bad test, a bad quiz, not an effective teaching tool, and just plain old click bait. Disparaging it is an appropriate response, and a fucktard such as yourself, with your vaunted claims of related professional acumen, trying to defend it is reprehensible.


  • You’re just pointing out that you are overqualified for this test.

    At its root, it is a TEST. Not many TESTs allow you to Google for answers and supporting information. Unless specified any TEST provides in the question the information to determine the answer. By not providing all the information and not informing you to utilise any source available to obtain extra ESSENTIAL infirmation, it’s a bad test. Intended to trick you.

    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. Same concept.


  • In the phishing Awareness course I wrote and sell, I do advocate to confirm that domains, phone numbers and other contact details, logos, are correct with the official website.

    I don’t advocate that when they receive a bill for something they know they didn’t buy, they should go to Google.

    And with googles current state, I could easily buy a domain and buy ads to put it at the top of search results. Googling the answer isn’t actually the answer. Verifying against known legit sources is.

    It’s a shit test, which more than half of the people in this thread got right, yourself excepted.