Sir Ryan Bemrose

Host: [angrytechnews.com](http://angrytechnews.com )
Co-host: [grumpyoldbens.com](http://grumpyoldbens.com )
Iron-fisted Overlord: [noagendastream.com](http://noagendastream.com )

Public Key

npub10usx3fj7rf0l8w86d2zjkxy9cnxrrh4qwt206r72p0q33m5ecxss7np5pu

NIP-05 Address

[email protected]

Profile Code

nprofile1qqs87grg5e0p5hlnhrax4pftrzzufnp3m6s8948apl9qhsgca6vurggpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dspfrj3f

Publishing to

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub10usx3fj7rf0l8w86d2zjkxy9cnxrrh4qwt206r72p0q33m5ecxss7np5pu

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-08-15 15:10:20 GMT

- reply

> Where are all the strong men at?
Most of us are taken by women not carrying around so much baggage.

2026-08-13 00:44:07 GMT

- reply

I fully support this form of protest, and see no downsides to it.

2026-08-10 20:37:04 GMT

- reply

replace
- www.reddit.com/blahblahblah"
with
- old.reddit.com/blahblahblah
to make the site usable. It takes you back to the reddit of 2018.

2026-08-03 17:39:30 GMT

- reply

I can't take AI announcements like this seriously. She doesn't even get her boobs out.

2026-06-16 16:48:49 GMT

- reply

It's not the FBI's job to police petty crime within cities. Those cities are supposed to have local police to do that. In places where they don't, the first criminals that need to be locked up are in City Hall.
Do you propose that the FBI should start arresting the mayors and city councils of cities who won't police their streets? If so, you've got my vote. But even the most ardent Trump-worshippers should cringe at the idea of a national centralized police force HQ'd in Washington DC and responsible for all policing across the country.

2026-05-08 19:19:48 GMT

- reply

And not to be confused with ordnance, which is what we should be using the next time they decide to impose totalitarianism under the guise of public health.

2026-05-08 19:18:46 GMT

- reply

Technically, an ordinance is a city or county level law.
The others are indeed all fantasies from the spank bank of a would-be tyrant.
https://bemrose.social/media/58c83fc83b48a49e578faf03a3453be65bc4d3f946cd16db032d42b34f425a6f.png

2026-05-08 17:09:02 GMT

- reply

He didn't serve three terms, but at this point, I don't think a rational person can deny that he won three elections.

2026-05-07 16:09:53 GMT

- reply

Short answer: Yes, you're right. Anyone with the ability to run code under your user account has access to everything that runs under your user account. That includes your passwords, if you store them in your browser.
And if your user account has admin privileges, then everything on the system is fair game.
---
I saw this scroll past my feed last night with the usual "OMG EVERYTHING IS BROKEN" hysteria, and yes, I rolled my eyes.
- A memory dump is literally everything that is known to the process at one moment in time. If the process has access to some information, that information passes through memory.
- There are some defense-in-depth tricks you can use to obfuscate certain bits. eg: the article mentions Chrome deleting plaintext passwords from memory, which defeats a casual ctrl+F search of a dump. But anyone with access to the dump can get the passwords because Chrome can get the passwords
- If these so-called "security researchers" are this mind-blown about a memory dump, wait until they learn about a debugger.
- In order for a process to open up a memory view on another process, it needs a special system permission (SeDebugPrivilege). Getting this requires Administrator access in Windows. Task Manager, of course has this permission, but it's not something that, say, a compromised Notepad could do.
- If your account is the default hybrid-admin account that most people run under, there are tricks to elevate from default "pseudo-admin" mode to full-blown administrator without user interaction. MSFT doesn't consider this to be a security boundary, but that's another rant.
- This article follows the persistent myth amongst security circles that there should be security measures to protect a user from themselves - some way to block off one process or bit of data from another running in the same context simply because they have different semantic meanings. This is possible - by putting data or processes on the other side of an actual security boundary (eg: in another account, or in a sandbox). But now you've sacrificed usability, which is something most users won't abide.
---
Anyway, from Microsoft's perspective, they've done nothing wrong here. This "exploit" only works if the user is an admin, and at that point you haven't crossed any security boundaries. IMO, it is poor form for Edge to load the entire password store in plaintext in memory, but that's more defense-in-depth than a vulnerability.
If you're concerned about this as a user, then there are two steps you can take: 1) Run as a standard user and not as admin. 2) Don't store your passwords in your browser. Use a third-party password manager.

2026-04-27 22:33:52 GMT

- reply

eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_linked_to_chatbots

2026-03-26 17:47:22 GMT

A surprisingly effective and totally fallacious form of online rhetoric used by people on both the left and right is to **dismiss an argument as "old" or "tired" or "overdone" without addressing the content of the argument at all**. The technique is a form of bad-faith argument employed by commenters who want to discourage or demean their opponent by suggesting that the argument has been made countless times before.
The implication is that the argument has been repeatedly refuted, and that by making it yet again, you are wasting everyone's time and energy, and everybody would all just be happier if you would **shut up and go away**.
It is bad-faith because the speaker **has no valid refutation at all**. The argument beind ridiculed is valid, but it is one that they would prefer that you just drop because it harms their own position.
Use of this technique often comes with a **false affect of world-weariness or superiority**, used to further demoralize the opponent into conceding. Another much more childish variation is the use of **MiXeD-CaSe sEnTenCeS aNd WoRDs** in order to convey a feeling of immaturity - an example of projection and reversal.
Use of this technique is a strong indicator that the person making the argument is **not here to gain knowledge or reach an understanding**, but rather to spread propaganda. (optionally, just here for the lulz). They will be completely unreceptive to counterarguments. If you find yourself in a conversation with one of these people, then it is *you*, ironically, whose time is being wasted.

2026-02-22 16:25:12 GMT

- reply

> PCR cycle thresholds are not arbitrarily adjusted to create false positives
Yeah, this claim's gonna need a hell of a lot more proof than "because the Eliza bot says so", if it can even be proven.
Our social media society has become so accustomed to blindly accepting unfalsifiable claims when someone says it in the midst of pseudo-scientific jargon, that even LLMs are emitting this flavor of propaganda, and people just lap it up.

2026-01-09 21:24:28 GMT

- reply

> different people want different things
Exactly my point. You used the word "everyone" in your OP, which implies a homogeneity that doesn't exist in humanity.
> build a civics where those desires can impact the compromises we make to build the best possible society
I'm not certain how to parse this, but I think your underlying assumption - that "everyone" wants a "civics" - is incorrect. This statement feels like a euphemism for forcing your rules on people who don't wish to be involved (ie: colonialism and slavery). But we've had that argument before, and don't need to re-hash it.

2026-01-09 21:22:50 GMT

- reply

> you want to be left alone so you think everybody wants that.
To some degree, all adults require agency. It's part of the human condition. People who genuinely crave being controlled and told what they must or mustn't do have not matured to the point of adulthood, regardless of their age.

2026-01-09 19:18:53 GMT

- reply

> Try to have empathy for everyone..
"Everyone" doesn't need more empathy. What everyone needs is to be left the hell alone to live their lives free of coercion and meddling.

2026-01-09 19:18:19 GMT

- reply

> Try to have empathy for everyone..
I'm pretty sure that's biologically impossible. Humans aren't wired that way. I'm pretty sure the attempt would give someone a mental disorder or psychosis.
Then again, I'm also pretty sure that's exactly what's happened.

2026-01-09 01:40:53 GMT

- reply

> American's are being treated like Israeli's treat Palestinians.
Quit your equivocating bullshit. ICE is not after Americans. An American who doesn't want to be targeted has a simple way to do that: Don't attack armed federal agents.
Every single American who is in harm's way is one who chose to put themselves there.

2026-01-08 19:45:16 GMT

Maybe the United States can arrange a territory swap with Canada. We'll take Alberta, and they can have Minnesota.

2026-01-07 08:35:18 GMT

- reply

Holy fuck you're being a hypocrite. What about all that hand wringing and pearl clutching when people talk about leftists as if they all agree on everything and speak with one unified hivemind? Were your objections all just performative?
The way you constantly do that with "hashtag-maga", I guess you're actually cool with being criticized for shit that progressives and commies say.

2026-01-06 06:18:02 GMT

- reply

"If there's a more clear-cut case of eminent domain, I've never seen it." -- *Michael Kitz, "Contact"*
@npub19gv…x4p4
https://bemrose.social/media/98d16d88f78d6caca219009ec60d30333794333a1a930fde50d1ea87ad40f68f.png

2026-01-06 02:55:50 GMT

All drugs are now de facto legal in the city of Seattle.
https://seattlered.com/seattle-red/jason-rantz-opinion/seattle-police-drugs-diversion/4115905
Ever want to shoot heroin, snort PCP, smoke crack, OD on fentanyl, and then go on a meth bender for the hell of it, all while standing naked in the middle of a public street? Come to Seattle, where there's no consequences!

2025-12-30 21:53:16 GMT

- reply

You said "We should rework the economy." I found that to be a ludicrous statement for a couple of reasons, but out of curiosity and benefit of the doubt, I was asking for clarification.
The communism part was supposition, because if that was your proposal, then this was going to become a boring already-hashed conversation.
> but this is what you do almost every time.
More ad hominem. This is what *you* do every time. You have still not answered the original question. At this point, I have to assume you don't have an answer.
> I think you're lying about me
I am not lying about you, at least not intentionally. You seldom provide enough for me to know your position, aside from the recycled Marxist slogans you shout into the fedi but refuse to back up with an argument. It would be easy to simply assume you're like the majority of brainwashed Marxists who loudly chant their propaganda while having never actually thought any of it through. If that's the case, I'm impressed; you're more articulate than most. What am I supposed to do when you refuse to respond to questions or defend your statements, while at the same time, accusing *me* of bad faith?
You force me to make assumptions about your reasoning. I don't have enough information to know if they're lies or not.
> I never start it.
You're right. Only one of us seems to be reaching across the ideological divide trying to understand the other. And it's not you when you respond to every thread by dodging the question and then having the gall to accuse me of bad faith.

2025-12-30 20:33:20 GMT

- reply

Yes, yes, I'm sorry. I always forget, it's all ad-hominem all day with you. You're constitutionally incapable of answering a simple question when it comes to the so-called "values" you're always spouting.
Your so-called "liberal values" are worthless, so long as you can't back it up with the least amount of thought or justification. It's much easier to assume bad faith on the part of anybody who asks a question.
But go on, keep attacking the messenger. It prevents you from having to realize your ideas are so weak they can't even hold up against Freshman-level analysis or questions.
When I ask questions like this, I'm trying to reach a deeper understanding. You prove yourself to be full of shit every single time you answer with ad hominem instead of intelligence, but in my unreasonable optimism, I keep thinking "Hey, maybe one of these times, he has an actual point. I'd like to hear more about it."
So go aheard and continue to call that "trolling". No wonder I'm the only thinking person remaining who still attempts to converse with you.

2025-12-30 20:13:05 GMT

- reply

> We should rework the economy
Rework it? Is that all? It's that easy, is it?
Let's put aside the incredible disruption, hardship and suffering "we" would create by attempting to do such a thing, especially considering it would almost certainly happen at the barrel of a gun, and let's just focus on the other question: **Rework it into what?** What kind of system do you propose that has decentralization and no billionaires?
How much is a question of degree. The fact is, human beings aren't equal. Some work harder than others. Some are more ambitious or greedy or charismatic than others. Eventually some will acquire more wealth or resources than others. Whether this means "billionaires" or merely "millionaires" is a matter of degree, but the inequality will always exist as long as you have humanity and freedom.
So how do you enforce equality on a species that is inherently unequal? The classic answer is usually communism (or socialism, which is the same thing with better propaganda). These systems ultimately use force and violence to make everyone "equal". But that explicitly fails your "decentralization" criteria; it requires some centralized entity to wield the violence against the public.
So I really want to know, what economy do you envision that produces both equality and decentralization, and works with humans?

2025-12-19 22:53:23 GMT

@npub103r…zsz0 @npub1xld…9wzl And the evidence just keeps mounting.
Anybody who is paying attention with an open mind is certain by now that Democrat Party not only engaged in widespread election fraud in 2020, but also did sufficiently in the six key swing states to have changed the election outcome.
Sadly, this changes nothing, because there will never be any amount of evidence or proof that will be sufficient for Bolsheviks like @npub1hmq…rlex on the other side of the "culture war", who refuse to see anything that might harm their fragile worldview in which the DNC is honorable and innocent of all wrongdoing, and that all of the problems of the world must ultimately be Trump's fault. It's easier for leftists to start a civil war than it is to admit they've been lied to by the their own Party.
https://notthebee.com/article/fulton-county-georgia-admits-they-illegally-certified-315000-ballots-in-2020-election
#note1k4g…fg67

2025-12-18 03:50:54 GMT

- reply

> some free speech about leftists being hateful and violent
> "I'm so glad that you're already on the FBI watch list"
Yeah, you're pretty much making his point for him.

2025-12-17 23:45:11 GMT

I recently found myself having to choose a new primary doctor. Apparently, they take you off the rolls of your old one if you don't visit for more than ten years.
Anyway, the new doctor probably didn't know he was interviewing for the job, but he passed with flying colors. His face was unencumbered by a cloth diaper. He wanted to talk about the food I eat before discussing pills. He offered a seasonal flu shot, but quickly dropped the subject when I declined. And he never once used the word COVID.
Yeah, maybe it's not much, but after going in with low expectations for corporate network doctors, I was pleasantly surprised.

2025-12-17 23:19:25 GMT

> An Aggressive New Flu Variant Is Spreading Across The US – Dr. McCullough On What You Can Do
---
The same thing people did for hundreds of years before the propaganda behind world's greatest hoax made throngs of gullible sheep deathly afraid of the common cold:
**Eat healthy. Go outside and exercise. Go about your life. If you happen to catch it, stay at home and rest until you're better.**
Follow me for more pre-2020 common sense.
#note1y07…6vnv

2025-12-17 23:07:44 GMT

- reply

That you seem to assume the discussion can be oversimplified into some kind of archetypal left-versus-right struggle tells me that this line of argument is not going to uncover any profound new insights or understanding today.
@npub1vlu…xzzu @npub1kzl…h23m @npub1nfa…rjl3 @npub1rsq…33yg

2025-12-15 20:37:06 GMT

- reply

Shhh! You're not supposed to ask questions that weren't in the press release.

2025-12-15 01:23:10 GMT

- reply

I don't see why you're turning this into a left vs right thing. She's a smart independent thinker who is unafraid to speak out for what she believes is true. That's a disappointingly rare trait in today's oversocialized world. Whether or not I agree with her, I very much admire her for that.
But that said, I can't take credit for the original tweet. It was originally posted by @[email protected] . I merely reposted it.
@npub1vlu…xzzu @npub1nfa…rjl3 @npub1my0…d6ft

2025-12-14 21:51:15 GMT

How to solve the border crisis:
**STOP HANDING OUT FREE TAXPAYER-FUNDED SHIT TO NON-CITIZENS**
The "social safety net" (a euphemism for redistribution of wealth) should be only for citizens, and NOT for people who cross the border looking for a free handout.
Once you fix the broken incentives, I promise you the flood of useless people will magically slow down or stop.

2025-12-14 20:59:19 GMT

- reply

https://bemrose.social/media/3c824c11f1352013fd9ef7817de28e999307f074b035ff0d295f62a2513e7f4a.png

2025-12-09 22:57:36 GMT

- reply

I didn't know about the Murkowski and Collins thing, but it supports my point about the Powers that Be only allowing RCV in places where it won't impact their power. Alaska is guaranteed to elect a Republican, so there's very little risk by letting people experiment how to choose which Republican gets in. Likewise, NYC will always elect a commie, so there's no harm pacifying their base with a little theater about which commie gets elected.
I mean when the Party owns all of the candidates, it's completely inconsequential which one gets in, or how they get selected.
I don't expect to see any fundamental moves away from plurality voting in a contested or battleground district. Not in my lifetime.

2025-12-09 19:48:18 GMT

- reply

No argument about that. I've always been on board with moving away from plurality voting toward something multiple choice. It doesn't frighten me like it does a lot of non-leftists, because I understand the math involved and why it improves fairness.
Unfortunately, it has a lot of adoption hurdles in the way:
- Ranked Choice is complicated and unintuitive, as compared to FPTP. The math alone requires a longer explanation than most folks have the attention span for.
- It enables the election of radicals, hard-liners, and fringe candidates, which turns off many independents and moderates - people who are used to always getting their way under FPTP
- Ranked Choice is only being tried in blue districts, which is making a lot of people think it's some kind of a progressive thing. Combined with the above point, it's developing a reputation for favoring radical leftists (eg: Mamdani), further reducing support from non-leftists.
- It ultitmately suffers from the same susceptibility to corruption in the counting room as any other system, but it's more difficult to audit. This further erodes trust.
- Most importantly, Ranked Choice is a threat to the entrenched power of the incumbent parties. This alone will prevent meaningful adoption in most cases.
Like I said, I support the idea of moving away from FPTP. But there are a lot of things blocking any meaningful change, and I don't see the current system being replaced any time soon.
A few minutes ago, you accused me of living in some libertarian utopia where real-world problems can be brushed under the rug. Ranked choice is your version of that dream.

2025-12-09 19:10:29 GMT

- reply

I like this argument a lot, because one's choice in soda is a personal choice that shouldn't affect anyone else, and it's perfectly reasonable for different people to choose different soda, yet in your hypothetical, 49% of the participants can have their dinner ruined by the other 51%, just like when the government provides things that should be provided by the free market.
#ThisIsWhatDemocracyLooksLike

2025-12-09 06:16:58 GMT

- reply

I assume this takes into account that $300k will buy about two month's worth of groceries in 2044, assuming there will be at least one Democrat administration within the next 20 years.

2025-12-06 06:10:19 GMT

- reply

It's not the size that matters.
It's how much of a monthly subscription fee you have to pay to sign-in to the required cloud account to enable downloading the forced automatic updates needed to unlock the optional freemium software packages like "steering" and "brakes".
I want nothing to do with any car that treats me the same way the software industry treats people who pay for their products.

2025-12-06 05:30:39 GMT

- reply

Denying food to a citystate because its leaders won't capitulate to some demands. This is literally what a modern medieval siege looks like.

2025-12-04 20:56:36 GMT

- reply

Nope, because that was made illegal by people (coincidentally on the left) who like to use government as a cudgel.
Every government action inevitably comes with unintended consequences. Every one.

2025-11-30 21:50:16 GMT

Theft is the engine that drives communism and socialism. Proponents of these systems promise far more that any self-sustaining system can produce, under the assumption that there is some wealthy "other" whose money, property, or labor is a bottomless resource pool that "the people" are entitled to take to support the unworkable promises.
This system only works until you run out of other people's money. When the pool of stolen resources dries up, the system inevitably collapses.

2025-11-28 17:49:36 GMT

- reply

What I understand is that you are very good at accusing others of what you do. For example, I think that on some level, you're vaguely aware that Darren and I are not the same person. I wonder if you may be intentionally conflating us so that you can then get indignant at all the folks who assume that every TDS-addled lefty cultist is the same person as well.
And don't think I haven't noticed that You still haven't answered the question. I specifically asked what YOU think the distinction is. There is no wrong answer to that question.
Besides, I already think that your ideology is warped and separated from reality due to your close alliance with communist progressives (but I repeat myself). You can't really make me think you're more wrong than I already do because of your repeated dodging the question.
Honestly, I was just trying to find a common definition from which we could have a rational discussion. But clearly that's not something you feel you're capable of, which is why instead you lowered the tone by being a glib asshole.

2025-11-28 17:25:32 GMT

- reply

Your sarcasm and glibness is noted. But I know how to look up what some self-entitled expert thinks it is. I asked what YOU think the difference is. YOU are the one making points about the topic right now.
If there is a blog post or wikipedia article that details exactly the opinion of William Maggos on this topic, then I apologize, but without evidence, I continue to assume there isn't. Hence my query. This is how conversation works. Try not being an arrogant asshole for six seconds and get over yourself.
(Or is this your way of telling me that you don't engage in thinking for yourself, and that I can reliably get all of your thoughts by reading whatever passes for Marxist academia these days? In that case, what the hell are you even doing online?)

2025-11-28 17:16:46 GMT

- reply

Please explain to me again exactly what you think the fundamental difference is between communism and socialism, outside of degree and nomenclature.

2025-11-28 16:51:14 GMT

- reply

https://bemrose.social/media/a3b90662722900b385d350ebb715f97a912deb3baeb13478f27cc2bfef41f9c9.png

2025-11-27 17:11:08 GMT

- reply

Open borders work perfectly fine and comport very well with liberty. What nobody here is taking into account is the system that lets immigrants into the country and *directly into taxpayer-funded social safety nets*. Nets which would NOT be supported by a libertarian.
Revise the system to end the free handouts and make everyone responsible for their own groceries, housing, jobs, jail time, etc, and you'll see the number of immigrants go down, as the average quality of immigrants goes up.
#IncentivesMatter

2025-11-26 23:22:59 GMT

- reply

A flawless argument! So independent thought = "elitism". Thus, the only way to not be an elitist is to shut off your brain and participate in groupthink - to let a political party do your thinking for you. Game, set, match!
I guess you can count me as an elitist too under this stellar leftist redefinition of terms.

2025-11-26 23:00:24 GMT

- reply

Someday, William, you are going to realize that in the 2020s, "liberal" and "leftist" are no longer the same thing. You're eventually going to be forced to choose which one you really are. On that day, you'll become a much wiser man.

2025-11-26 22:02:40 GMT

- reply

Yeah, I'm old enough to remember back when Trump and all of those evil hashtag-MAGA conservatives were censoring people and getting them fired from their jobs because of widespread mass-hysteria about the common cold.
Oh, wait, that wasn't hashtag-MAGA Doing it. Who was it, I wonder...
(It wasn't that long ago either, but it may as well be centuries for people training their attention spans by fervently reading every single post on social media)

2025-11-26 21:14:48 GMT

- reply

> I'm sure you will say you didn't see that
Yeah, just like I was sure you'd claim to have said that while I was asleep or otherwise not tuned into the All-Maggos Channel.

2025-11-26 20:32:52 GMT

- reply

Yeah, see my point about meandering word salad...
I know that you love to go back to that well of "Oh, but Ryan, you didn't say anything bad about Trump so you must be a Trump lover". It's part of your inherent need to avoid the message at all costs and only discuss the messenger.
I don't need to criticize Trump. Half of the Internet is constantly spewing hate about Trump's existence, and criticizing everything from his immigration policy to his word choice when rebuffing a disrespectful journalist. It's already been said. What could I possibly say that would add to that discussion?
When you add to the chorus, you look like a brainwashed madman. Think for yourself for ten seconds and say something I couldn't hear a hundred times over by accidentally clicking on a bsky link.
I'm not asking you to "speak up bad about Dems". I'm asking you to use some goddamned objectivity and original thought.

2025-11-26 20:23:08 GMT

- reply

Okay, one more reply. I'm never quite sure exactly which meandering unfocused part of your posts you want me to respond to, but I guess you wanted the reply to the heel part.
I agree he is playing the heel. 47 is quite a bit worse than 45 in that regard, and I suspect it's largely in response to the shit he's had to put up with to get here. I'll spare you the full enumeration of the illegal and unconstitutional bullshit that he's had to put up with from the party of Trump Derangement Syndrome, but it starts with constant unceasing libel from the media, turns into a three-year hoax about Russia, two unwarranted impeachments, an FBI raid on his family, lawsuits and indictments from corrupt AGs, and ends with him literally getting shot in the head. You'd be a bit miffed too, if you were in his position.
Sure, it'd be nice if people could play along. But nobody on the left will ever give him the benefit of the doubt, and no one will ever be civil to him. So I can totally see why he's shed the civility himself.
Am I okay with this incivility? It really doesn't affect me. I'm not in the room with him, and I don't watch 24-hour news. I'm far more concerned with what he does than what he says.
Policing tone while not bothering to address actions is a weak argument.

2025-11-26 20:08:25 GMT

- reply

Coincidentally... That you think it is somehow worse for the country to have a President say mean things than it is for one to collapse our social safety nets by flooding the country with foreigners on the taxpayer dime... That is strong evidence of your cult membership.

2025-11-26 19:59:59 GMT

- reply

That you think Trump is the first person worthy of disrespect to occupy the Oval Office is strong evidence of your illness.

2025-11-26 19:41:34 GMT

- reply

Your mental illness is so fascinating.
https://bemrose.social/media/6af4007f759cefed96931b5b954ac24297cfd0e541a77d255843e9e79b96d843.png

2025-11-26 17:36:07 GMT

- reply

I came into this "internet" thing decades ago with a healthy skepticism of everything I was told. It infuriated my teachers and professors, but left me in a pretty good place to evaluate new claims and things online.
AI company marketing keeps trying to position AI as a trusted friend you can count on. We should be treating it more like a shady corner drug dealer. Yeah, he can get us what we want, but the price is high and never doubt he'll throw you to the narcs in a heartbeet when the cops show up.

2025-11-26 17:22:50 GMT

- reply

This would be huge if true, but I can't find anything about it, and it smells like AI hallucination or wishful thinking. Do you have a link? Or the name of the case?

2025-11-22 18:27:39 GMT

- reply

> "relies on having good people doing the enforcing"
> True of any policy
Which is the reason why the bar for creating new policy should be so much higher than it is. You're creating a set of conditions under which it becomes legally acceptable to infringe the rights of others, and it is inevitable that eventually the person making that decision will be a psychopath.
(Cue Maggos dropping some ad hominem about libertarians without bothering to address the veracity of the argument.)

2025-11-20 19:20:04 GMT

- reply

Subjective policy is bad policy, precisely because it relies on having good people doing the enforcing.
Unfortunately, there are far fewer civic-minded people who seek power to protect, than there are corrupt people who seek power to harm. There is no mechanism in our system to ensure that only "good" people become mods or cops. (With the ideological divide in society, there is not even agreement on what constitutes "good")
Open any history book and you will find endless examples of what happens when a corrupt or evil person attains such a position of power.

2025-11-20 18:45:40 GMT

- reply

I still find it fascinating that you think it is an aggressive act to ask for clarification of your policy position.

2025-11-20 18:31:56 GMT

- reply

Aside: I get that there's no way I can convince you I'm not an "edgelord" as you say, so you'll have to just go on believing that. But if you do ever run into someone who knows me, they would attest that I'm just like this offline too. All piercing questions, with no patience for equivocation or apeals to emotion, and a complete lack of empathy as a core value.

2025-11-20 18:31:38 GMT

- reply

Personal interactions are full of judgment calls that rely on intuition and feelings.
Policy - the set of conditions under which it is socially acceptable to use violence to infringe the rights of others - must be held to a much higher objective standard than intuition and feelings. If you can't come up with objective criteria when to apply a policy, then it is unjust to implement it, which was my original point.
So. You're the one who is always talking about "moderation" with regards to social networks. Answer the question: Do you have a set of objective rules for how that moderation is applied? Or do you advocate a policy where the intuition and feelings of whomever has the moderator stick becomes law?

2025-11-20 18:02:11 GMT

- reply

What the hell are you talking about? Did you reply to the wrong post?
> would you say that AFK? or would you get upset if somebody you loved got such a reply regularly online?
You are always talking about how online discourse needs moderation. I asked a clarifying question about it, and you reacted like I called you vaxxed or something.
So yeah, I guess if somebody I loved got a reply asking for them to clarify their policy position, I would encourage my loved one to answer with the rationale that led to that position. If they couldn't, then their position is unsupported, and they should re-think or abandon it.

2025-11-19 18:37:08 GMT

- reply

Agreed re: bubbles, but what is your prescriptive definition of "abuse"?
Part of the reason we have ideological schisms and resentment online is that every rule about "abuse" or "harassment" has been reactive and not prescriptive; has been defined with the Potter-Stewart-esque "I know it when I see it" approach. It is impossible to enforce such a rule equitably in any society where people have differing values and tolerance levels.
(... as long as you're encouraging replies from people you don't like ...)

2025-11-18 04:58:36 GMT

- reply

To say that every decision someone made was bad -- every single one, over an entire lifetime... That is an extremely bold argument to make. It is nearly impossible to prove, and is statistically certain to be false.
It is propaganda that borders on Orwellian for our history books to teach us exactly that about this particular person.

2025-11-17 02:42:13 GMT

I'm looking to build a media center PC from scratch on the cheap, and looking for suggestions.
Target user is someone who isn't super-familiar with linux, but who is not afraid to open a command shell and read a how-to guide. Plus his computer-averse family members.
Hardware is an old desktop PC with lots of storage (all media local) and an add-on graphics card if necessary. Input via game controller.
At this point, the software is probably gonna be Kodi or equivalent. Am leaning toward a dedicated XBMC distro like LibreELEC.
I know someone out there has gone down this road before, so I'm looking for any important advice you have, before I start to go neck-deep in .rc files.
@Tony

2025-11-15 04:41:22 GMT

- reply

Coming soon to DSM-6
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/11/psychotherapist-confirms-tds-is-real-exploding-patients-cant/
-----
>Even worse, O’Neil said, Democrats have turned this neurosis into a political strategy:
> shutdowns for the sake of “fighting Trump”
> legislation drafted to stop Trump, not help Americans
> party platforms built around pure opposition
> In poll after poll, Democrats say their top priority isn’t the economy, schools, or the border, it’s simply “fight Trump.”
-----
@[email protected] @npub1hmq…rlex
https://bemrose.social/media/eb09c35b55211db9549f0878905f5023668fc732741bed37137b3c364c2b7cce.png

2025-11-11 16:30:12 GMT

- reply

"Introducing iPhone Drawer: The best way to carry an iPhone"

2025-11-11 06:20:04 GMT

So-Cal-ism: (n) A form of government instituted by people fleeing the failed wasteland of California, settling in your town, and then voting for the exact same policies that destroyed cities like Los Angeles and San Diego.

2025-11-06 18:11:03 GMT

- reply

> if I argue in the 60s that we need to end Jim Crow
I didn't say that all cultural change was evil. You were the one stating that the side starting the conflict was "the enemy". In societal conflicts, that's almost always the progressive left (as opposed to the side which is literally called "conservative", meaning to favor status quo)
As an aside, if you have to go back sixty years to find an example of a progressive cause that was socially beneficial, you're kinda proving that the progressive left has overcorrected and lost its way. **I** would have counted myself as a liberal in the 1960s, back when the movement was still worthy of its root word "liberty". Today, the progressive left serves the Marxist global domination agenda. It became far too authoritarian for the word "liberal" to be anything but anachronism.

2025-11-06 17:46:47 GMT

@npub1hmq…rlex
Loud and clear. I'm surprised you would utter this line, though:
> a decent analysis implies that our real enemy must be those who are pushing the conflict.
Which, applied to society and taken to its next logical step, means that the "bad guys" are the ones who have been forcing cultural changes for decades, while the "good guys" are the people who want to keep the status quo and be left alone. Something something Marxists.

2025-11-05 17:31:09 GMT

New York has been electing commies to office for decades. Try not to act so shocked when you finally get one who's honest about it.

2025-10-24 22:13:32 GMT

- reply

Take note: It is a common impulse of the Marxist-indoctrinated to see every situation as "us versus them". Even beneficial symbiotic relationships must be reframed in this way, in order to describe one side as the villain.
This change in perspective is used by Marxists in order to feed and reinforce the narcissistic feelings of victimization which are inculcated into them during their conversion.
@npub1hmq…rlex

2025-10-20 03:26:28 GMT

- reply

> This week: No Kings
> ramped up the authoritarianism
That's quite the flex.
Not that I think you are capable of looking **objectively** at the last five or six administrations, but there is precedent for just about every thing that the intentionally-ignorant leftists are suddenly now whining about. Bush and Obama did far more to exert control over Americans and centralize it into DC.
But of course, TDS is a hell of a drug.
@npub1arf…uejc

2025-10-16 16:25:11 GMT

- reply

I care a lot more that they can act. That this isn't a hiring criterion is the core problem with DEI policies.

2025-10-12 01:51:16 GMT

- reply

It's in my post history; I don't delete anything. I'm not your secretary.
Nor am I obliged to bring receipts for something I haven't claimed. Remember, YOU are the one who seems to think it somehow shows virtue to criticize your chosen political cult while continuing your undying fealty.
And YOU are the one who has decided that I'm obviously in the opposite cult, and therefore must criticize right-wingers equally to leftists. I declare membership with no group but myself, and am not obligated to give equal time to rants based on your political false dichotomy.
It's ironic, how often these days I see people like you throw around the word "cult" when talking about people with whom they disagree. The way I see it, a person who assumes they absolutely MUST be members of one party or another, and makes that an integral part of their identity... That is the textbook definition of a cult member.

2025-10-12 01:32:34 GMT

- reply

You're a leftist by choice, if not by action. I am not doubting the integrity of your actions in this thread. It's your choices I think are suspect.
More to the point (or at least less glib), I said *your* narrative, by which I mean YOU, William Maggos. You are ignoring evidence and examples that do not conform to the narrative being pushed by YOU, William Maggos, in this thread.
> the right some negative stereotype
> the left some positive sterotype
I understand that you may not be able to distinguish between YOU meaning a person, and "YOU" meaning the communist collective you've chosen to align yourself with. If it would help, I shall try to be more precise in the future.

2025-10-12 01:22:01 GMT

- reply

A couple weeks ago. I got death threats from the poast reatard brigade. Any other #whataboutism bullshit you want to pull to try to change the subject?

2025-10-12 00:38:51 GMT

- reply

Sure, as long as you conveniently ignore all of the evidence that contradicts your narrative.
Just like a good leftist.

2025-10-10 19:56:04 GMT

I don't get why Trump even wants a Nobel Peace Prize. He should be snubbing those sell-outs. The cheap plastic whistle in the bottom of my cereal box is worth more after the committee gave one in 2009 to a sabre-rattling rubbleizing warmonger for political favor.

2025-10-06 16:44:12 GMT

- reply

> The accidents would be prevented if everyone obeyed the law
(I'm ignoring the rest of your false equivalence fallacy)
The accidents would also be prevented if everybody matched my speed. Or if everybody walked instead of taking cars. Or if anyone who isn't in a hurry just stayed home. There are a lot of protocols that "everybody" could adhere to. "The law" simply has the advantage of a government-supplied communication and enforcement system.
Speed limits are arbitrary. We like to assume that they're set with road conditions, intersections, and traffic patterns in mind. Sometimes they're set simply to maximize a local jurisdiction's revenue. But even assuming the most beneficient intentions from the roads department, speed limits are set for a section of road independent of local weather, traffic patterns, and type of vehicle. Which means that they're set to the lowest-common denominator. If a road says Speed 55, that's the safe speed for an 18-wheeler in heavy rain and heavy traffic in the middle of the night while a childrens' parade is just letting out. During bright daylight with no traffic and a highly agile car, a person can safely go faster than that. Your solution doesn't allow for that.
More importantly, your solution bucks incentives, which simply doesn't work when you put humans into the mix.
https://bemrose.social/media/b47c4d7c23e830d1ead9e86e97be0dcf20f2958caaf8d56b9a670f9f9a013c16.png

2025-10-06 15:53:02 GMT

- reply

Well, if you're absolutely determined to get into a preventable accident, please have the courtesy to not do it anywhere in front of me. I have places to be.

2025-10-06 15:50:37 GMT

- reply

You want road rage iincidents? Because that's how you get road rage incidents.
https://komonews.com/news/local/usps-postal-worker-shot-in-everett-by-package-delivery-driver-washington-state-crime-public-safety-police-investigations

2025-10-06 15:21:03 GMT

- reply

That last 9% had better get the hell out of the left lane already.

2025-10-03 20:46:06 GMT

- reply

DameBemrose here. If someone has lost their balls, I would suggest checking the local lost and found bin. They can also go to the local animal shelter to acquire a set of Neuticles. Just make sure that they are true and tested official Neuticles. Avoid the pirated Neuticles from China.

2025-10-03 19:06:42 GMT

Far too few people understand the true secret to surviving social media with your sanity intact:
**Don't feed the trolls.**
The idea is simple: If you're not going to get anything beneficial out of continuing a conversation then *don't continue it*. Don't engage. Don't reply. Let the idiot get the last word in. It's no sweat off your balls.
I feel silly for giving such obvious advice, but the number of y'all who clearly don't understand this is staggering.
(And of course, as a sometimes-troll myself, I thank you all for being so obtuse)

2025-10-02 22:15:29 GMT

- reply

There's plenty of evidence that J6 was a false flag, but even if you assume Trump intended that outcome, how is it unconstitutional? Is it about provoking civil disorder? How is that different from BLM 2020? Or ICE 2025? (other than J6 was just one incident and not dozens of coordinated ones)
And what exactly do you think is unconstitutional about questioning election results? Biden was duly inaugurated following the Congressional certification of a potentially fraudulent, but uninvestigated election.
If those are the best two examples you have of the current admin "shredding" the Constitution, then I don't even see an argument here.
@npub1yhz…7q68

2025-10-02 17:32:30 GMT

- reply

> social contract is being shredded
There's a big difference between a "social contract" and the Constitution. I can't tell if you're conflating them.
I agree with the root argument that the Constitution is just a piece of paper, and that if we want to keep our Republic, then we need much stronger leaders willing to enforce it.
But it is disingenuous and divisive to only call out when "MAGA" violates it. Did "MAGA" pressure social media companies to deplatform all conservative speech? Did "MAGA" go ahead with student loan forgiveness *after* the Supreme court said it was unconstitutional? Did "MAGA" pass every firearm law ever?

2025-10-02 00:28:14 GMT

- reply

People should not go to Starbucks for coffee. It's not what they're good at. Their specialty is drinks with so much cream and sugar you can't tell there's any coffee. They're good at giving you an unhealthy 20oz dessert that you can drink in the morning and pretend it's breakfast.

2025-09-29 15:47:53 GMT

- reply

I'm not seeing posts from people I follow. There are a couple replies coming through (like this one)
Also, I made a couple posts yesterday that got reactions from followers on SPC, quoverdium, and a couple other small instances, but not one reaction from NAS. Maybe I just wasn't funny enough. But had to check.

2025-09-29 15:43:10 GMT

@npub1gx2…4lmh Did noauthority get config changed recently? I've seen very few posts or replies from you guys since 9/26.
Or maybe I just got fediblocked. :D

2025-09-21 19:42:26 GMT

If you ever wondered why tech companies are pushing so hard to keep the H1B program, understand that if an H1B worker loses their job, they also lose the visa, and must leave the country.
They aren't free to quit their job, and they aren't free to move to another company. They can be exploited for long hours and paid far less than an American who might leave under the same circumstances.
This is indentured servitude. And it is exactly what big tech companies want to replace skilled American workers with.

2025-09-20 00:34:25 GMT

- reply

Oh, shit, nobody tell @npub19rm…nqgc His whole belief system is based on these bullshit models.
https://www.fortunejournals.com/articles/a-stepbystep-evaluation-of-the-claim-that-covid19-vaccines-saved-millions-of-lives.html
@npub1dye…4227
https://bemrose.social/media/30a530dec700aaa0168753296e83d9eed0e0d581b86222c6c761d12d2d7b4110.png

2025-09-13 01:47:33 GMT

- reply

First place I saw that behavior normalized was reddit, which is almost as left-leaning as bsky

2025-09-13 00:26:29 GMT

- reply

IRL you get punched in the face for the kind of casual disrespect that passes for a greeting on social media. It is a powerful civilizing incentive.
But the answer every online network turns to is "moderation", which is the same thing as ZT in schools, or having Daddy come down and punish people after-the-fact for rules thay may not realize they've broken. It is NOT an incentive for good behavior. As any school bully knows, it's an incentive to suck up to the teacher and to do your evil deeds where you won't get seen.

2025-09-13 00:00:11 GMT

- reply

The social media "alt-right" is a direct reaction to arbitrary and capricious moderation by increasingly authoritarian leftists.
The worst crime on the internet, "harassment", is poorly defined. Enforcement is reactionary, rather than prescriptive. A person can never know what they may or may not do, until they cross the line and are punished for it. Which means that its definition is entirely up to the self-styled tyrants charged with enforcing it. When those people, ruled by their own subjective and biased opinions, apply the rules unequally, you get a backlash.
As I tried to tell you yesterday, "freeze peach" instances exist because "rules for thee" is a complete non-starter.

2025-09-12 16:36:58 GMT

When the left preaches tolerance, remember what they're saying about Charlie Kirk right now.
When the left preaches empathy, remember how they feel about Charlie Kirk right now.
When the left asks for open discussion of ideas, remember what they did to Charlie Kirk, who was trying to do exactly that.
The left practices situational morality. Something is considered moral if and only if it advances the goals of the left. Lying, cheating, election fraud, murder. All on the table, as long as it serves a political need.
The left cannot be trusted.

2025-09-12 16:06:52 GMT

- reply

A man was just asssasinated for trying to have an open discussion at a place of learning by an unstable wackjob brainwashed by your precious #LiberalValues, and all you can do is accuse him of being insincere.
Again and again, your only yardstick for deciding whether someone is discussing in good faith is if they eventually come around to agreeing with you. You never seem to consider that maybe your arguments suck the big one, and you're not persuasive at all.

2025-09-11 17:29:01 GMT

- reply

Possible tangent, but one problem I see with any of the moderation strategies is that the definition of the word "harassment" is far too subjective.
As far as I understand, something is harassment if the reader feels harassed by it. A speaker has no control over what the reader feels, and therefore cannot with any certainty avoid "harassing" anyone who could possibly see the message.
This leads to a strong chilling effect on speech, which is easy to see in practice in any space with a strict "no harassment" policy. Again, you might be okay with that, but it's hardly an open marketplace of ideas.
If we're going to set rules, they need to be more prescriptive and less reactive.

2025-09-11 16:56:38 GMT

- reply

Heavily moderated servers (and corporate social media) buy the illusion of civility at the cost of conformity of thought. If you are okay with having your thoughts suppressed, or if you already think in lockstep with the censors, you're probably fine with that. But if you're an independent thinker, that kind of thought-censorship is infinitely worse than enduring a few f-bombs.
(I say "illusion of civility" because many admins of heavily-moderated instances are totally cool with any level of hate, as long as it's directed at the "right" people)