US House bans WhatsApp on Congress devices
https://www.axios.com/2025/06/23/whatsapp-house-congress-staffers-messaging-app
Ex-mil, ex-sec, ex-treme, & ex-plosive.
Go ahead. Squeeze me. Crack that vial and watch the fireworks erupt.
Ditching Windows as it has become spyware and adware.
Flipping to Linux.
#defenestrate
#defenestrating
#defenestration
#defenestratewindows
#linux
US House bans WhatsApp on Congress devices
https://www.axios.com/2025/06/23/whatsapp-house-congress-staffers-messaging-app
Fourth most stupid at most. No higher.
3rd place: France marches on Moscow.
2nd place: Germany marches on Moscow.
1st place: Moscow sells Alaska to the USA for [checks notes] bugger all.
Meta just doesn't understand the concepts of privacy and security.
Headline:
●WhatsApp banned on House staffers' devices
•Andy Stone, a spokesperson for WhatsApp parent company Meta, said ...
"We know members and their staffs regularly use WhatsApp and we ... "
Let me stop you right there, Andy.
The very fact that Meta can, and does, use WhatsApp as spyware is the reason why you can say that.
Meta tracks the locations and contacts (and more) of all WhatsApp users, WHICH IS WHY IT MUST NEVER BE INSTALLED ON ANY GOVERNMENT DEVICE!
Join Signal.
https://www.axios.com/2025/06/23/whatsapp-house-congress-staffers-messaging-app
Yeah, cool!
I know nothing about radioactive contamination in the environment.
I was merely commenting on the 'fearmongering' aspect.
It should (hopefully) be uncommon to see 'fearmongering' or 'click bait' from The Guardian, but everyone should be alert to 'alarmist' language.
The Guardian was perhaps unclear that:
Some sites have 4x the 'nominal background radiation', and
Some sites have up to 4500x the 'nominal background radiation'.
But, I don't think The Guardian was 'fearmongering'...
😁
I'm going to continue to stay away from all radioactive sources while preparing my banana smoothies on a granite bench top, and smoking the odd cigarette!
I couldn't possibly be exposed to any form of radiation from those activities!
☢️
Check out the LockPickingLawyer('s) channel on YT.
It *may* be worthwhile seeing if your new lock is mentioned...
... and maybe hide an AirTag or similar on the bike.
Well, not quite fearmongering but certainly an unclear sentence that was derived from the study's abstract.
Multiple sites were tested, and the range of contamination across those sites was "four to 4,500 times higher in the Montebello Islands than the WA coastline..."
In short, 'bad' in some places, 'very, very bad' in others.
Oh, absolutely!
But thanks to AI b.s. any of Elon's lawyers could state to a court, "We're aware of AI fakes, including fake videos, and we have not personally observed our client using a computer.
We are instructed by our client that he does not use a computer."
Laughable, isn't it!
But the laughing stops once affidavits need to be signed, or sworn testimony given.
Hmm...
* "Ultrasonic" and yet, "below the human hearing threshold."
That's a contradiction in terms.
* "Invisible tractor beam".
As opposed to a visible tractor beam?
Sound waves can 'push', but they cannot 'pull'... which is what a 'tractor beam' is supposed to do. (Sure, one could create a "3D field" of interlocking 'sound beams', but none of them could 'pull' anything.)
"Tractor beams" can currently move little more than particles that are barely visible.
I remain unconvinced.
True... almost.
It's common for a proceeding to seek to answer a question regarding how a law should be interpreted or applied. Thus, any "basis in law" may be argued from either side.
However, it is true that (for most jurisdictions) a lawyer (being an 'officer of the court') must never *knowingly* mislead the court as to the facts.
If Muskrat has instructed his lawyers that he doesn't use a computer,
and if the lawyers have no direct knowledge of Muskrat doing so,
then the lawyers can say that he does not use a computer.