I was thinking of the main cast, really, but I honestly thought Gene Hackman was gone. Happy to be wrong about that.

Sadly, most of the players of the bit parts are gone too, including Danny Goldman, who played the medical student with a line. The little girl is still alive as if the shoe-shine boy and the other credited medical student. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised considering the movie is now 50 years old. Damn, I’m old. :(

I think that she was the last surviving actor from Young Frankenstein. Everyone else in that movie is gone now except the director. Mel Brooks is still kicking around at 98 years old.

I love his response at the end of the article.

Dougan told the Post he wasn’t behind DC Weekly and other sites and said he didn’t know Korovin or Khoroshenky. He said he worked as an IT consultant for an American company.

“I will tell you hypothetically, if they were my sites,” he said, “then I am merely fighting fire with fire because the West is fucking lying about everything that’s happening,” Dougan said. “They are lying about everything.”

Those aren’t my websites… but if they were, "I AM FIGHTING FIRE WITH FIRE BATTLING THE CAPITALIST MENACE IN THE WEST AND WILL SEE YOUR NATION FALL, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA… ahem… hypothetically.

What makes you think he has two jobs? He’s a former Florida sheriff who, according the the article, “moved to Russia amid an FBI investigation” and is now a Kremlin-backed propagandist.

Have you considered listening to the pretty extensive explanations they’ve given in this comments section as to why?

I was just entertaining a notion as I lack the skills to do an analysis like you did.

As for reading the other comments here, I have read them now, and they are interesting, but when I first commented, there were no other comments here and the post stood at -3.

The same people who are downvoting you, I guess. I’m not really sure what the objection is but they are very consistent. I’ve actually wondered if someone set up some bots to downvote all the MBFC bot posts for some reason.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

The man in the first four paragraphs of the article, Lawrence Faucette, is the second dying man to receive a genetically modified pig heart. The first dying man, referred to in your quote, only survived two months but the heart failed, possibly due to a virus in the heart that came from the pig.

Just your quote, that says such people who give up some liberty don’t deserve any. I suppose you didn’t mean it that way but it seemed harsh.

Fair. Old Ben meant it harshly, I’m sure.

As for the internet being a public space where privacy shouldn’t be assumed, I have to disagree. There is far too much activity on the net that would never be conducted in a place where there is no assumption of privacy. Clearly things like banking matters need to be private and secure, but I include in this things like romantic matters. If any government can access any data on the internet that they want they any oppressive government will do so. In addition, any opening for government will be exploited sooner or later by criminals as well.

Essential in the sense of privacy being central to our nature. We all deserve, and indeed, need our privacy. In the USA, the 4th Amendment guarantees “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” without sufficient evidence of wrongdoing. Any reasonable modern interpretation of that amendment should include electronic documents and communication.

I’m not sure why you would think that I believe tick-tockers should not have privacy protection. Any app that invades the users 'privacy should be banned for the same reason that end-to-end encryption should not be banned. If Tick-Tock refuses to respect the privacy of people’s non-Tick Tock communication then the app should be banned.

Benjamin Franklin once said: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

This still applies.

Atheism: yes, I know religion is stupid; but you know what else is stupid, trying to force feed your opinion; I mean, we can’t even joke about church wifi name here

Sure you can. Look again at your link. You linked straight to one heavily down voted comment thread under that post. Click the view all comments link and you can see that virtually all the other comments there are positive, mainly, other funny wifi names. If you find one negative post, already heavily down voted, to be too much negativity for you then you are not going to be happy anywhere on the internet.

That may have been the goal. Look how good our AI is, even we can’t tell if its output is human generated or not.

OpenAI discontinued its AI Classifier, which was an experimental tool designed to detect AI-written text. It had an abysmal 26 percent accuracy rate.

If you ask this thing whether or not some given text is AI generated, and it is only right 26% of the time, then I can think of a real quick way to make it 74% accurate.

Any information they get is going to be examined for keywords at the very minimum. If, for example, you text your wife about test results from the doctor’s office, they can add that to the profile they’re making of you. If you get a text from a cardiologists office saying your results are in, they can infer you have heart troubles. Things like that.

Per the article…

They can collect personal information from how you interact with your car, the connected services you use in your car, the car’s app (which provides a gateway to information on your phone), and can gather even more information about you from third party sources like Sirius XM or Google Maps.

In addition, my car uses text-to-speech to read texts to me and I can even reply to them with speech-to-text. Any data that passes from your phone through your car could easily be harvested. You should also assume that any data on your phone can be harvested by the car’s app if you install it.

The principle behind copyright is to protect creators for a time so that they can profit off their creations for a time period before the creation becomes public domain. This is intended to inspire people to create new things. Imagine you create an amazing new thing, let’s say you’ve invented a brand new method of compressing/transmitting data. In a world without copyright, you will not make a dime off of your invention. Every tech company out there will take your idea, incorporate it into their systems and make bank off it. As a small time inventor, you will not have the ability to compete with them. Copyright forces them to pay you to use your technology. Others will see you profiting from your own creation and be inspired to create their own works.

Sadly, the system, like so many others, has been corrupted. Copyright was supposed to protect the creator for 14 years with the ability to renew it once. After that, anyone would be allowed to use it. Copyright was also intended to protect the inventor of an idea, not corporations. Companies now use the copyright process like a sledge hammer to keep all profits to themselves. Using massive amounts of money and armies of lawyers, they have completely twisted copyright laws to their own benefit. Creating loopholes to allow copyright to last essentially forever and even going so far as claiming ownership of ideas created by employees, the very people that copyright was originally supposed to protect.

The idea of copyrighting works to protect and inspire inventors and authors is noble but, like everything else, the implementation has been corrupted by the greedy and power-hungry.

Be patient. It will be.

If you follow OP’s link, the wiki suggests another rule that I think is more accurate. The 1–9–90 rule. 1% create new content, 9% (including you and me) contribute, and 90% lurk.