For the record, I didn’t bring up a bounty, but I still received payment. It helps that it is a small company, and that the CEO is also a developer. They were so grateful for the discovery that the bounty was freely offered without me asking.
Interestingly, I didn’t have to circumvent any security measures to uncover the vulnerability. They had a page that was leaking api keys - all you had to do was watch the network requests. That’s why I chalk it up to luck and not my prowess in cyber security.
There is no meme police and nobody uses the term image macro.
I would argue that memes aren’t necessarily meant to be funny. I think the most important component of a meme is its composition, which is usually a square image with optional text. But yeah, I completely agree with your broader points.
I agree with you, but you also can’t just assume that everything is fixed or that the security is as good as the competition these days just because the software received a lot of updates.
It’s been a meme for years. Maybe you just hadn’t run into it before.
I like: Cylinder, Snowflake, Vault, or Piggy bank
Yes it does make sense in context. Using the word robbers to mean “taking the lives of animals” does not make sense in context and is a stretch beyond the imagination. Also, I never asked, “what were they stealing from the animals,” and I don’t appreciate you quoting words I never said!
Maybe you should just try being lucky. I found a critical security vulnerability while working on my scraping project. I told them, they paid me and gave me written permission to scrape.
No, clearly not. But I’ve already explained how they are substitutes and you just ignored my point.
Not that they need to be substitutes in the first place. Any mode of transportation is going to be more or less dangerous than any other mode of transportation, and that alone is enough to compare them. You don’t need to be able to literally substitute a plane for a motorcycle in every situation to analyze the differences in the danger between them.
They literally are substitutes. If planes didn’t exist then more people would ride motorcycles for very long distances. They may even take their motorcycles on ferries to make their trips possible if they have to.
There is not an evident skew, and you haven’t been able to articulate the source of one.
The number of miles motorcycles are ridden and the number of motorcycle deaths is unfortunately not a small sample size, so your shopping cart example isn’t really a great analogy.
But that’s the whole point of normalizing by distance traveled. If you drive your motorcycle 100x less and it still kills you, then that’s evidence that driving motorcycles is more dangerous than cars.
You say it’s bad because it normalizes by distance traveled, but you don’t say why normalizing by distance is bad. It makes perfect sense to me as it treats all modes of transportation equally. It allows you to approximate the answer to, “if I have to travel a set distance to my destination then which mode of transportation is safest?”
This is somewhat hateful of you to say, and it’s also false. People don’t take joy in feeling angry, and feeling angry doesn’t make you feel powerful. Anger can feel a lot better than sadness, embarrassment, and fear because it externalizes the cause of your emotional state. Anger is reinforcing because it displaces those other negative emotions. They aren’t getting angry because they enjoy it. It’s just a coping mechanism.
I used to struggle with this type of road rage myself. It started out with occasional shouting at other drivers and slowly grew to a near constant state of anger whenever I was driving a car. It felt awful. There was no part of me that liked it. In my case, the anger was almost always a reaction to feeling scared about being late. I got over it by making sure I always left with extra time to spare.
What you wrote doesn’t match any of the controllers. Did you mistype?
It can also mean to overcharge someone, which is likely how it is used here. The exorbitant price of sacrificial animals is multiply attested. The poor couldn’t afford it
I’m not sure how your interpretation is meant to work out. I don’t see how people would be compelled to give their belongings to someone if the threat is directed towards random sacrificial animals. Are you trying to say that they were stealing from the sacrificial animals themselves, and that’s why he called them robbers? It doesn’t make any sense to me.
That’s not true. He denounced them for price gouging gentiles who came to the temple to make sacrifices. He didn’t call them murderers - he called them thieves.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+21%3A12-13%2CMark+11%3A15-18&version=NASB
That’s fair, but I was thinking in the context of meme communities like this one in which nearly all of the posts are images.