This started in my head as a plot device in a story, but I was wondering if it'd actually fly in the real world.

There are many public figures who almost certainly have closets which are positively creaking to bursting point with skeletons. Politicians, especially. Can you hire a private detective to investigate someone without having a clear goal in mind? Like, just "investigate until the money runs out" kinda thing, in the hopes that eventually something incriminating or reputationally hazardous is found?

Is this legal? If so, who should we send the P.I.s after first? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

It would be interesting to see how certain people would behave if they simply heard we were planning this. Like, would JD Vance suddenly start burning shit in a barrel in his backyard if he heard about the army of P.I.s we've paid to look into him? We could make that the scheme: go through the motions of crowdfunding an investigation, but the real P.I. will be watching the named individuals and seeing what they do in response to the threat 👀

I enjoy the way forums work and how they're laid out. I also love how useful they are, especially when so many companies are replacing their entire communities with a Discord channel, which is less than ideal. I only use a few forums, but I'd like to find some more to browse through, it doesn't matter the topic!

My wee list:

• TIGSource Forums - Video game developers big and small post here, there's even a section for showcasing work-in-progress projects which is really cool.
• The Metal Archives Forums - The main site is pretty much the gold standard for metal music cataloguing. The forums are obviously about the metal genre, too.
• Cook'd and Bomb'd - This is a comedy aficionado forum. It's about all comedy, but it originally focused on the work of Chris Morris (Brass Eye, The Day Today).

EDIT: "Meal" to "metal" 🤦‍

If it is, I assume it's measured in thousandths of a gram or something, but are we all nevertheless a wee bit heavier than we ought to be?

A single mildly bumpy ride won't turn you into an NFL domestic abuser, but over the course of 20+ years? And if you were on horses or in rickety carts from the time you were a squishy infant? Boom, curdled grey matter.

No horses = no war, no murder, just pure enlightenment and peace on Earth.

Beware the horse 👀

The theory, which I probably misunderstand because I have a similar level of education to a macaque, states that because a simulated world would eventually develop to the point where it creates its own simulations, it's then just a matter of probability that we are in a simulation. That is, if there's one real world, and a zillion simulated ones, it's more likely that we're in a simulated world. That's probably an oversimplification, but it's the gist I got from listening to people talk about the theory.

But if the real world sets up a simulated world which more or less perfectly simulates itself, the processing required to create a mirror sim-within-a-sim would need at least twice that much power/resources, no? How could the infinitely recursive simulations even begin to be set up unless more and more hardware is constantly being added by the real meat people to its initial simulation? It would be like that cartoon (or was it a silent movie?) of a guy laying down train track struts while sitting on the cowcatcher of a moving train. Except in this case the train would be moving at close to the speed of light.

Doesn't this fact alone disprove the entire hypothesis? If I set up a 1:1 simulation of our universe, then just sit back and watch, any attempts by my simulant people to create something that would exhaust all of my hardware would just... not work? Blue screen? Crash the system? Crunching the numbers of a 1:1 sim within a 1:1 sim would not be physically possible for a processor that can just about handle the first simulation. The simulation's own simulated processors would still need to have their processing done by Meat World, you're essentially just passing the CPU-buck backwards like it's a rugby ball until it lands in the lap of the real world.

And this is just if the simulated people create ONE simulation. If 10 people in that one world decide to set up similar simulations simultaneously, the hardware for the entire sim realty would be toast overnight.

What am I not getting about this?

Cheers!

Wouldn't it cut down on search queries (and thus save resources) if I could search for "this is my phrase" rather than rawdogging it as an unbound series of words, each of which seems to be pulling up results unconnected to the other words in the phrase?

There are only 2 reasons I can think of why a website's search engine lacks this incredibly basic functionality:

1. The site wants you to spend more time there, seeing more ads and padding out their engagement stats.
2. They're just too stupid to know that these sorts of bare-bones search engines are close to useless, or they just don't think it's worth the effort. Apathetic incompetence, basically.

Is there a sound financial or programmatic reason for running a search engine which has all the intelligence of a turnip?

Cheers!

EDIT: I should have been a bit more specific: I'm mainly talking about search engines within websites (rather than DDG or Google). One good example is BitTorrent sites; they rarely let you define exact phrases. Most shopping websites, even the behemoth Amazon, don't seem to respect quotation marks around phrases.

Thinking about the gaming magazines I used to read as a kid in the '90s. Some of them have found their way online thanks to preservationist efforts, but most are seemingly gone forever. (I'm talking about the particular magazine I read as a kid, many others have complete or near-complete collections available online in the form of scanned hardcopies.)

Do the publishing houses keep a digital copy of every magazine they release? If so, why don't they release them? They could probably charge a fee to download them, like other digital magazines do, but of course it'd be great if they just shared them for free for historical purposes on the Internet Archive or something.

It would be an insanely short-sighted practice to not keep masters of these publications forever, no? 🤔 The raw files probably take up a few CDs' worth of space for the entire run of the magazine. Big assumptions on my part, I have no clue how any of it is done!

So:

1. Do they retain the files forever?
2. If so, why might they not be shared 20 or 30 years later?

Cheers!

[-ish] Ireland, Scotland = Irish, Scottish

[-an] Morocco, Germany = Moroccan, German

[-ese] Portugal, China = Portuguese, Chinese

What rule is at play here? 🤔

Cheers!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Knight

She was the first woman in Australia to be given a life sentence without any possibility of parole.

(Edited to add the link. I did add it originally, but I guess it doesn't post it if you also write in the body of the post? 🤷‍)

Natalia was born in Ukraine in 2003, and was diagnosed with a rare form of dwarfism. More or less immediately, she was given up for adoption.

Adopted by a couple in the US, they facetiously but legally changed her birth year to 1989 with a view to skirting child abandonment laws. Her real age - the age she actually was when they adopted her - was confirmed by DNA testing, as well as contemporaneous documentation in Ukraine.

After seeing Orphan, a horror film in which an adopted child is actually a crazy adult with a rare genetic condition that makes her look like a kid, they hatched the idea of fudging the documentation like in the movie - except in reverse. In the film, the character changes her documentation to make herself seem younger than she is. With Natalia, they needed her to be an adult.

They moved her into her own apartment (an 8 or 9-year-old at this point), then quietly snuck off to Canada along with their biological children.

And the evil cunts got away with it. They lied about her, saying she was threatening to kill everyone and was a sociopath (again, taking their cues from the horror film). A fucking 8-year-old dwarf was gonna kill them all, they said.

Truly repugnant people.

If a judge is called 'corrupt' by a defendant outside court in front of the media, or if something more unambiguously libelous is said, can the judge sue the defendant?