If these posts are made in a relatively short time then it could appear as spam. I browsing New is my default and, on a couple of occasions, I have blocked a user simply for being too active and flooding my feed.

As individuals will each have multiple records associated with them, one for each of their previous home addresses, the breach does not expose information about 2.7 billion different people. Furthermore, according to BleepingComputer, some impacted individuals have confirmed that the SSN associated with their info in the data dump is not correct.

National Public Data scrapes the personally identifying information of billions of individuals from non-public sources

Honest question: If these sources are non-public, how did National Public Data get access?

Facetious questions: If they are using private or restricted sources of data accumulation on an international scale, should they be calling themselves National Public Data? Seems like Global Private Data would be more fitting.

There is a cerebral palsy anime?

Does anybody know where they getting the numbers for this claim? I see that they cited “Associated Press and other sources” for the US protest arrest numbers, but no source for Hong Kong protest arrests numbers.

I would like to find some corroboration for this claim and all I can find for Hong Kong is a count of deaths, injuries, arrests, and charges once public protests had effectively ceased.

Think of it like this

• HTTPS hides what you are saying.
• VPN hides who you are saying it to.

I am happy to take your word for most of it, but it does not change my view. I am completely in favor of identifying and taking steps to remediate the underlining cause of all forms of crime rather than simply punishing violators. That being said, the hubris that an individual, or group of individuals supercedes the survival of an entire species is repugnant to me. I have no sympathy for anybody that actively contributes to the the extinction of another species (except mosquitos).

The one point of your argument that I do question is the “kill a rhino and get enough money to last a few years” claim. While I have not looked into the details in India, as I understand it, poachers in Africa can make roughly the equivalent of an average 1 month salary for killing 1 rhino. If, in India, they make enough money to last a few years than either poachers are almost exclusively first timers, which seems highly unlikely to me, or they are doing it for greed rather than survival, which would negate your argument of the restrictive hunting laws.

And if they were hunting non-endangered species for food, then I would be outraged by a lethal response, but that’s not the case here.

You are using 2 different analogies that contradict each other. The poachers are cultivating a product, similar to poppy and coca plants, not the street dealers, and the wealthy are the buyers / “users”.

So if they are poor and eradicating a species off the face of the planet, then they should get a pass? They have the equipment and skills to hunt non-endangered animals which would provide food for themselves and their family. Excess meat could likely be traded or sold. Poaching is not a crime of necessity.