Last I saw there was a couple that was in a place known for this strain and they were likely sick before stepping on the ship. Cruise ships are Petri dishes, but that’s unrelated in this case as of the last report I saw. Also, from what I understand this particular strain does transmit person to person.

What happened that you were not even allowed to see him? Generally that only happens in cases of abuse where I’m from.

Interesting. Thank you for taking the time to reply!

Do you know the reason taking hot showers is part of the criteria?

That’s a valid opinion to have, but currently they have a legal obligation to do so to a certain extent, as explained in the article. It does not seem like the family was asking them to do anything other than what they are currently legally required to. They weren’t asking them to change his diapers or sponge bathe him, just accompany him through the airport.

The airline is required to accommodate passengers that need to be escorted. If they were unable to do so for whatever reason, someone needed to be notified. If you have to escort someone and for whatever reason have an emergency and cannot do it, you need to find someone who can or at least notify the expectant family. The article says he was not provided any assistance at all though, so that is moot regardless. Based on the article they didn’t even try to help him. I don’t know why people are projecting a situation that didn’t happen when the article alleges something else.

Unfortunately, dementia isn’t a consistent thing. You can have episodes that seem extreme despite them being infrequent, or potentially only happening under certain conditions. Regardless, the airline said they were going to assist him. They did not. He had family waiting to receive him at the airport. There was apparently no assistance provided at all or attempt to notify his family of that. He didn’t somehow overpower someone and escape, they just failed to provide promised and legally required assistance.

In the article it explains that they informed Spirit ahead of time that he would need to be escorted and they confirmed he would be.

I don’t know why people bother to comment their opinions without reading the article. Especially to just be on the side of corporations. It’s like that McDonalds hot coffee situation. If anyone bothered to actually read the article they would understand what’s actually happening.

If you don’t think he should’ve been flying, then it’s still spirits fault for telling people he would be provided assistance that he was not, which is something that they’re required to do anyway, as stated in the article.

Yea, I was mostly joking. It’s also a bunch of children who are not well known for understanding the intricacies of social systems. They are also fictional, so there’s that. I do appreciate you adding that context, but I figured I’d explicitly state I was joking in case someone assumed I was actually blaming fake children for their own misfortune. I just thought it was funny because they’re not even taking revenge on people who would have wronged them. It’d be one thing to trick people who decide to ignore them into drowning, but they’re tricking people who decide to help. It’s like the opposite of revenge. It’s more like “if I can’t be saved no one can be”, which is admittedly a very childlike attitude.

Did none of them stop to think that killing the people that try to help trapped children might be contributing to the epidemic of people being unwilling to help trapped children?

No good deed, amirite?

The original Bloomberg article is quite informative.

California was the only state in Bloomberg’s review that did not use advertising trackers, having removed them last year after being informed of the security risk by nonprofit news organizations CalMatters and The Markup. A separate Markup analysis of 19 state sites last year also flagged data exposures in several states that later changed some of their settings.

According to Edwards, one reason so many websites continue to share sensitive user data is that website operators deploy tracking tools without fully understanding how they work. “The onus is on them to do it safely,” he said. “You can’t protect something that you don’t understand.”

If anyone has looked into Google ads at all, the first thing they try to get you to do is install a bunch of trackers on your website. In order to do that you have to check a box that says you have a privacy policy which discloses certain information. If you try to tell them you do not have that and do not want to do tracking they will outright lie about what they are getting you to do. They tell you to just check the box and that it doesn’t matter and then will tell you that it doesn’t track anything. One would hope that the people doing these sites for the government would know better, but they may also just not care. They may just be using a standard SEO suite and no one bothered to mention that maybe they shouldn’t on either the government side or the company side.

At least the banking information likely belonged to the people that bought the glasses. It’s very possible that people have unknowingly had sex with people wearing these glasses and now not only does a sex tape exist of them, it was also sent to help train AI and other people have seen it too.

Oh, for sure. And I really should’ve known better. No offense taken.

Yes, but also I have to draw a line somewhere. I have a daily backup process. Some data is backed up to multiple places. I have backups of my backups. I cannot ensure that all three of the daily backups I run are fully restorable. I would love to know with 100% certainty that they all execute perfectly, but at the end of the day I have to trust the tools and processes I put in place for backups. A yearly checkup is probably more than sufficient for my purposes. I’m sure for certain businesses or sectors they need to be more on top of things, but I could manage just fine if all of it disappeared tomorrow. It wouldn’t be awesome for me, but it’d be manageable.

Not to give myself more credit than I deserve, but I did test them upon setup, and had restored from backup 2 years ago. I didn’t have any ongoing checks other than to ensure a backup happened. I have since instituted yearly checks of the backups themselves, but I did feel dumb when I realized how vulnerable my data was.

I don’t want to sound like a know it all here because I recently was reminded by a nice Lemmy person to actually TEST my backups, but damn. Every part of that is so dumb. I also have backups stored by a different company in addition to locally storing really important info. If your stuff is hosted and backed up by the same people, what happens if your account is randomly suspended or hacked or some other issue (like ai)?