What science has proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that nothing comes after death? I'm sure most of the human race would be very interested to read the white paper.
Serious biblical scholars don't put much stock in the Genesis account being literal. It was written in classical Hebrew's poetic verse. The core of what it's getting at can still be true without it being literal. I have yet to encounter an instance where anything that science has discovered is incompatible with Christianity.
I think even most religious people accept that bud, unless you're talking to a specific sect of evangelicals. It doesn't disprove religion or "magical fairies" [†] at all.
[†] r/atheism circa 2016 called and want their dorky terminology back.
I think we've lost the plot, you were talking about the earth being made 6000 years ago and now you're talking about people being made in the image of god? You're just scrabbling for anything you think will score a cheap shot, when I'm not even Christian bro. Go try to dunk on someone who's at least half as emotionally invested in this as you are, goofball.
“Science can’t prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that nothing comes after death, therefore a guy is flying around in outer space listening to my thoughts in his golden city at the end of time. If you disagree you will catch on fire forever.”
The amount of strawmen and false equivalencies here is crazy. I bet you can't name one person who refused to get Internet because photos don't load fast enough.
There was a whole gaggle of people who refused to get it for that and a few other "user friendliness" reasons. And I completely understand it.
>Across all groups of users, taking too long to download pages (i.e. "speed") is the most commonly experienced problem with the web (64.8% of respondents).
>Online retailers especially should take note: 53% of respondents reported that they had left a web site while searching for product information simply because the site was too slow.[1]
It's strange to think about now but roughly half of people in the US didn't have internet in the year 2000. And half of people that had the internet weren't making any purchases. People didn't trust or see much use for the tech back then and it was really hard to convince them.
I understand that internet adoption wasn't universal in 2000. You're saying they refused to get it because photos took too long to load. That's an absolutely absurd statement.
I was very specific in the failings of Sunrise and XR and they contrast greatly with efforts like energy star or the Paris accords, and their members would say they same thing in that they tried something very different.
My comments have been very specific, but you can't manage more than a sentence. Further, you have not even engaged with a single one of my words or statements.
Something posted with the understanding that it could potentially be viewed by anyone on the Internet with minimal/no restriction.
ToS are just what you follow if you don't want to get banned off of the site. If you don't care about that, then you can go hog wild, though you're being a bit of a jerk/not playing nice obviously.
You don’t see a difference between accessing data by hacking a service (which is illegal) and downloading/scraping data that’s not protected? The TOS are a contract and only a civil thing afaik.
That's a blatant strawman - that's not a reasonable position at all. A reasonable person does not expect their private medical records to be accessible to you or me just because they are stored in an EHR system.
They might be surprised that you or I looked at their TikTok video when we aren't the intended audience, but they still posted it publicly, with the understanding that it would be made freely available to others.
It's definitely not a strawman. Perhaps you meant that it's a false equivalency, but I don't think that's true either.
With how common data hacks are, why wouldn't a reasonable person expect their medical records to leak? I received at least two such breach notices just last year.
Obviously I meant that any data a person expects to be public, like a public post on a social media site... I was not referring to data exposed in data breaches, which is a different subject entirely...
If that was not obvious to you then I apologize; though it really should have been, since you are encouraged to interact with others in good faith on HN.
And if you expect your medical records to be public...then what is the point of this discussion?
The user only gave TikTok permission to use the videos according to the ToS. And considering the majority of TikTok users are children, I think it's hard to justify morally, even if you could make a legal case.
A "data breach" refers to unauthorized access to nonpublic or protected data. Scraping content that is publicly viewable without logging in - or even with logging in, since an account is effectively disposable - is not a "data breach" (as far as any typical usage of the term goes).
In hiQ Labs v. LinkedIn, the 9th Circuit (US) ruled that scraping publicly accessible data does not violate the CFAA's "without authorization" clause (hiQ was bulk scraping public LinkedIn profile data - in violation of LinkedIn's ToS). The Supreme Court later specifically narrowed the CFAA in Van Buren v. United States saying "exceeds authorized access" applies to accessing areas of a system you aren't entitled to enter at all, not misusing access you legitimately have (regardless of ToS violations).
Other CFAA cases have ruled similarly - being legitimately granted access (i.e. signing up for an account, or browsing publicly without logging in, since the site is intended to be available to the public) and then misusing it is not "hacking".
So in the U.S., it's not a computer crime ("hacking"/"breach") to scrape data, and nobody uses the term "data breach" to refer to scraping publicly available data on a public site, except for apparently you.
"use automated scripts to collect information from or otherwise interact with the Services" — this covers the entire scraping operation.
"make unauthorised copies, modify, adapt, translate, reverse engineer, disassemble, decompile or create any derivative works of the Services... or determine or attempt to determine any source code" — e.g. reverse-engineering the X-Argus/X-Gorgon/X-Ladon signing scheme.
"interfere with or attempt to interfere with the proper working of the Services... or bypass any measures we may use to prevent or restrict access to the Services" — TLS-fingerprint spoofing, the empty-200 soft block, and the proxy IP rotation to get around rate limiting.
"use or attempt to use another's account, service or system without authorisation from TikTok, or create a false identity on the Services" — this covers the forged device registrations (fake Android handset + carrier profiles)
"use the Services, without our express written consent, for any commercial or unauthorized purpose" — the website is monetizing the dataset and selling the code itself.
Still not a hack or a breach. Still "public" data. Still a TOS violation. Your up-thread claim that potential hack is the same as public is still incorrect.
I wasn’t asking if a data breach could be in the search results, I asked if saving search engine results in itself would be a data breach.
Apparently you think that scraping publicly accessible data from tik tok is a data breach in itself, so does this apply in other cases too?
I could get the same data in principle by downloading the app and accessing the post. There’s no hacking or circumventing access controls. That’s what I meant by public data.
reply