Yes, some wireless routers can be used as repeaters.

Routers like that are really multi-purposes devices that handle routing, switching, and wireless. If you're only using a local network, you can still have the wifi network and all your devices communicate through that. You just won't have internet access.

With out the router/switch, the cable's usefullness is reduced - at least in the networking application we're talking about (the cable itself is incredibly usesful for many other things besides ethernet). You can connect (most) devices directly together for communication, they'll just self assign an IP address.

In less words, you can have a network with just a wireless router and no cable, but you can't have a network with only a cable and no router (well, you can't with 'normal people' devices)(also you don't need a router for a local network, only a switch - but the home versions are often combo devices and just called a router).

Disclaimer; this is mostly off-hand knowage, might be a few details I missunderstand.

Quick edit, I'm rereading your post, and pretty sure you already know boost doesn't choose the ads, but asking to pick a different provider so..........oh well, I'm not gonna delete this.

Those adds aren't specifically chosen by Boost (or whatever site/app your using). It's whatever the ad provider decided to inject. Boost just says 'place add here' - its up to the ad provider to figure what ad to place here. The ad providers (google or facebook) use their algorithms to guess which adds your most likely to engage with, this why you'll see the same thing in multiple place, and ultimately the whole point of data collection - to sell us more shit.

If you're using Lemmy, it's probably fair to assume that you use some form of add/tracking blocker - which means the ads you get aren't targeted, and you get the ones that are paying to get broadcast randomly instead of focused based on user data (which I assume costs more, but gets a higher click through rate).

There's probably some settings the Boost developer can set up, but I'm not sure what the granularity is. Someone who has actually used the service would know, I can only assume there's some basic categories like language, age group, and generic things (music, tech, sports, ect) that determine if your site shows ads for matchbox cars or "hot (insert race&age) ladies in your area". I highly doubt there's a setting called "disable scam ads".

For a site/app to have full control of what ads they display, they would have to make deals with the actual business wanting to advertise (think a direct youtube sponser vs an auto-ad that plays whatever). For an independent ad developer that would be like giving yourself a full time marketing job, and for a business it would be a nightmare to manage every individual.

This is where the advertising agencies come in; "you pay us lots money of money and we'll find lots of "billboards" to show your ad to - give us more money and we'll only show your ad to people likely to buy your stuff"

And on the flip side "let us put a billboard here and we will pay you money everytime someone engages with it, things like popups/video/auto play = more money. We'll also buy any user data you have so we can optimize the billboards for maxium engagment, that way we can charge the businesses more to advertise and you can fund whatever you're doing (as long as it's advertsier friendly, but don't ask us for clear guidnece on that)".

Google wants to crush third party app stores/developers in the name of safety, but will gladly serve bullshit to users for as long as they get paid.

Imagine their entire family has no idea where the medal came from, but like 12 random people on the internet have the full story.

Someone knew you were a vegetarian, served you chicken broth with out saying anything, and then later acted surprised you ate it anyway? Wtf?

That's a good idea. The "probably" really is forced. Especially the second one. I think the "punchline" works better if the serious tension isn't broken early.

I DM'd you an edit I made, removing "probably".

I thought about posting it here, but I don't think we should get in the habit of editing people's coimcs to our liking and sharing them, probably.

If YOU gave a plushie #31 a real name, maybe they'd be more inclined to help you!!

It's over 8000!

Consent is consent. It's not exclusive to sexual activities.

Extreme comparisons like this have been used since the dawn of time to draw attention to a smaller problems. Just because it's smaller problem, doesn't mean it's not a problem.

In fact, there's nothing in this comic that specifically compares scraping AI to sexual consent. Sure the "ugly" guy is pretty stereotypical of how we represent rapists, but that's just a common association we share, not reality (I have no doubt the artist is fully aware of this).

If we really want to get into this, we can talk about the AI scrapping being done across social media that is adding children to the data set. Do you think everyone ai generating images of children has good intentions? Think their parents give consent for that "use case" when they posted the pictures to Facebook years ago? It's disgusting and should not be dismissed because "its as bad as the real crime".

Oops, I wasn't really doing the math as I went

Originally I was adding up to your 10x + a adding in bunch extra for flock, but somepoint my brain switch that 10x to 10%. Oh well, the specific numbers dont really matter.

I think greater responsibility should be placed on the department to encourage firing. If the burden is mostly on the officer, than the department bean counters won't care as long the officer can write more "valid" tickets to offset the bogus ones.

Its also like if a waiter drops a tray of food on someone causing injury. Who is financially responsible to the injured person, the business or waiter? I think most of would agree that the business is. The business is fully within their rights to fire that waiter, but they can't withhold pay for the damages. If the business can prove the tray was intentionally thrown, then they can sue the waiter. But, the injured party should never have to talk to the waiter.

Should the be the same for an officer, if they make a mistake it's on the department to make it right with the affected parties. If the department proves the officer maliciously broke protocol or law, then they can sue them separately. The victim of the officer's actions should be made "whole" by the department, then the department and officer can figure it out on their own.

Break it down; 2% cop 5% department 25% flock 2x cop 5x department 25x flock

The extra 20 from flock goes back to taxpayers who had to pay the department's portion.

You could argue it wasn't destruction of property and get the charges reduced.

You'll still get slapped with vandalism or something, but shouldn't be as bad as destroying the unit.

One them eagerly starts unzipping their pants