Yeah, got it, something seems amiss.
That thing being X. As per here.
Only question now is: Why for Pete’s sake (that’s not a good answer) would anyone want to be binned into any category like that!?
As if you’re nothing if not reduced to the furthest bland’ed statistic ..? As if you have no life except for what you’re told to have to the broadest of consumerist-dunce craving marketeers ..?
I don’t know. If you seek utter stupidity to be poured over yourself, feel free to be an <whatever>ennial or so. To the sane (which might be the few): Run away!
[Case(not -mate) in point; France]
Just a side, very far side, note on the whole celeb news going round: Where did the masses not see the One Nation Under Wood reference in that last word ..? And wasn’t the character perfectly portrayed by an actor that kept secret what the character kept secret too ..?
[At least, the double layer became apparent now that the actor showed the IRL part of it. Maybe not showed his part. Maybe not too pub(l)icly. Etc.]
Oh well I’ll leave it at that. And:
[For the completely zero reason: Torún]
No, you uncultured species, he was not onto the physically edible kind…
But the kind that comes up when considering that for Spheres parts I-III (heartily recommended, to read and study them fully to full understandig of every bit of it …!), this right honourable gentleman (‘person’) used some, estimated, 1.250k (yes as in 1.25M) words.
Or, as that would be called for German philosophy, a sound bite.
Out of the physically-inverse (?) of Plato’s Aristophanes’ speech’s whole human (lost), the spheres turned into foams in all their intertwined physical plus completely-moreover abstract space references, are being realised in writing, in bites… Feels a bit (huh) like going from 140 to 280 and noboby really understands any of that number(s) in the first place. Both mundane – why not 291 ..? – and meta – how is ‘280’ different from ‘1’ or what is the nous of any number ..?
Now I’m rambling… Leaving you with:
[Something-something- Heraclites so completely ill-understood; Prague]
When you read too much (ahead) into it…
By means of this court ruling. Where a father was forbidden to post pics of his (was it 2- or 3-yr old) son on Facebook or any other socmed platform, by request of the kid’s mom, since even when the father posted in quite tightly closed circles, Fubbuck has in its terms and conditions that it might use the pics for commercial purposes. Since the latter can not be ruled out and in the interest of protecting the child’s interests, the court ruled such, advising the dad to show the pics to friends op his home compu if he’d really want to.
[What need would the father have to do that? one can ask. Benign or perverted?]
From which we learn, if – very very big if – that indeed we should consider the need and purpose of posting on socmed in the first place. If it is content that one wants the world to see, it’s OK. If some part of that content, or the purpose of the post, would not be OK → get out. If the purpose of the post would be to show off (e.g., one’s cool-dadness – pityful! but see how the other 99.999% of posts anywhere are for that purpose and that alone…), really nothing may cure you (sic).
So now, what about this post …? And:
[Since it’s no longer the site banner: Rightfully and intentionally out in the open; Barça]
Recently, was reminded (huh) that our memories are … maybe still better than we think, compared to the systems of record that we keep outside of our heads. Maybe not in ‘integrity’ of them, but in ‘availability’ terms. Oh, there, too, some unclarity whether availability regards the quick recall, the notice-shortness of ‘at short notice’ or the long-run thing, where the recall is ‘eventually’ – under multivariate optimisation of ‘integrity’ again. How ‘accurate’ is your memory? Have ‘we’ in information management / infosec done enough definition-savvy work to drop the inaccurately (huh) and multi- interpreted ‘integrity’ in favour of ‘accuracy’ which is a thing we actually can achieve with technical means whereas the other intention oft given of data being exactly what was intended at the outset (compare ‘correct and complete’), or do I need to finish this line that has run on for far too long now …?
Or have I used waaay too many ””s ..?
Anyway, part II of the above is the realisation that integrity is a personal thing, towards one’s web of allegiances as per this and in infosec we really need to switch to accuracy, and Part I is this XKCD: