I’ve seen a lot of various 3 word combos mostly revolving around shit and shot adjacent coloured eye ware and that was my thought as well but one thing I think everyone’s missed is that it you want to try and stick to the template so it’s recognisable the antonym for the phrase but still change enough of it to be clever, we should change tinted as well and I think “tainted” is perfect since it sounds almost the same and has a similar meaning in context but still adds it’s own negative connotations.

“Shit tainted glasses” is the chef’s kiss in my mind. Unless anyone’s got something that means the same or almost the same as glasses but also adds additional negative overtones.

I had this happen once and I had a hell of a time trying to find a way around their bullshit. I finally just emailed them and asked for a real tracking number not a link and they actually obliged.

Kinda… Slightly more helpful, but almost as vague. I’m advising against opting for solutions that are technically correct but would be more difficult for the average person to get right most of the time.

The OP’s CAPTCHA as a case in point, it’s frustrating for them because they’re ostensibly asked to enter the characters that they see but there are several and the length of the string of characters is not known and some characters are hard to read and depending on how you interpret it you could be being asked to enter all these characters or you could look at them and say there’s a background set and a foreground set in which case, which one is the correct one? That’s at least 3 different ways to do it and that’s assuming that what appears to us a representation of depth is indeed intended to be the basis of separation for 2 sets of characters and not some other arbitrary categorisation or no categorisation. Sounds complicated and ambiguous. Except, it’s much harder to read the background set, and the idea that there would even be some other way of categorising, if it occurs to anyone at all would be impossible to work out since if it’s there, it’s not discernible. The easiest way is to just read the letters that aren’t partially covered up and also smaller than the more obvious, easier to read, not occluded characters and disregard the ones behind it. What’s easiest to do also most of the time turns out to have been the hidden instruction for what you were meant to do.

There’s no explicit instruction to do this, it’s wishy washy and hard to abstract for different CAPTCHAs which is why this advice doesn’t look a whole lot better than “just guess right” but in a way that’s kind of part of why they still have some effectiveness, they’re unspoken rules that humans Intuit. Where some of us, like me before kinda “getting it”, go wrong, is in overthinking and over analysing it. “but what if they mean this? I mean technically it could…” If you’re thinking like that, odds are you’re barking up the wrong tree and the solution is way less sophisticated.

As others have pointed out, it’s probably the foreground characters. They’re easier to read and less ambiguous from occlusion by other characters.

In general I find you can resolve technical ambiguities or possible loopholes to instructions in these things by asking yourself “what would most people do, especially if not really thinking about it much?” That’s particularly helpful for situations where you have to select all the tiles with x object in them. Often you’ll see that technically there’s a little bit of the object in squares other than the most obvious ones that everyone would have selected and you ask yourself “does that count? Technically a little bit of it’s in this square” but if you just pretend you didn’t notice that and only go for the most dead obvious squares you end up passing. Once I realised this the number of times I failed CAPTCHAs significantly reduced. For some reason the only ones that continued to be a problem were the click a checkbox ones that seemingly analyse your mouse movement because somehow I apparently move like a robot.

Other than in some very niche and select circumstances that I honestly can’t really think of, nobody is going to think it’s cool. However if you like it and want to do it then that’s really more important than if others will think it’s cool. However, I should add some caveats to that.

In some environments, if you’re young than school especially, can be very cruel and very conformist. In those sorts of environments, being “weird” can seriously make you miserable because you’ll be ostracised and while being authentic and true to yourself is important you’ll need to decide how important this specifically is to you, because if it’s not that important then in a context like school I’d say don’t risk it.

However if you want to try it out sometimes around friends who already like you then why not? Just try to keep an eye on people’s reactions and see if they start to get tired of it or roll their eyes or visibly cringe, that’s a sign you’re doing it too much and it’s getting irritating. Definitely don’t change your entire speech pattern to whatever you decide equates to “old timey”, all the time in every conversation with everyone, it won’t land well.

The article mentions that. They supposedly released 2 versions, one “enhanced” to help make the relevant parts of the image easier to see, which certainly matches the description of “modified” and the other, the same footage but described as “raw” implying that it wasn’t “modified” in that way.

There are a lot of plausible and likely explanations for the Adobe metadata schema information that is in the file that don’t involve deceptively manipulating footage to hide something that was in that footage before public presentation, then again, given the circumstances and supposed rationale behind publicly presenting this footage, failing to release it with untouched unmodified metadata from the camera original source files is not a good look. Failing to then answer questions about that makes it look even worse. This is is especially true when, although there is no answer they could give that would actually totally convince everyone, there are as I said many plausible explanations they could have offered and yet they were just silent.

Ironically, as is so often the case with anything like this, depending on the interpretive lens you’re using this issue with the metadata helps confirm either assertion, that there was cover up and Epstein was murdered, or that there was no such cover up and he really did kill himself. Obviously, the fact that it’s modified lends credence to the idea they’re hiding something because one might expect that if they weren’t it’d be easy to just supply the footage with metadata more reflective of a surveillance system than Adobe software. However one could also say that, modifying metadata in a way that is undetectable should actually be relatively easy and the fact that they couldn’t be bothered to do that, or didn’t know how, or never thought of metadata being present in the first place could suggest it’s not deceptive skullduggery so much as technical incompetence and sloppiness - too sloppy for competent conspiracists. On the other hand, they could also be sloppy and incompetent conspiracists who just did an awful job. That’s not altogether unlikely either since the entire supposed suicide they potentially conspired to have people believe is a very suspicious cover story to begin with so not exactly an expertly conceived plan, more improvisational and done in a hurry which would kind of track with them botching later actions to take the heat off.

Got him! Send in the seals.

It’s likely heavily reinforced by your voting system but 2 party systems aren’t unique to that system, even in theoretically better voting systems you frequently end up with very similar results. Australia as a case in point. That said if current electoral trends continue we could be seeing the end of that here and at least our system theoretically allows that to happen.

There’s stuff on there I didn’t download… Hundreds of gigs. Eek.

Surprised it hasn’t been superseded meaningfully? Or surprised people are still using it instead of another better tech?

That’s really not fair or helpful to the poor kid. It may be nonsense but it’s very real and has a very real impact on his life. Those little monsters truly will go out of their way to make him miserable and sad as it may be keeping a low profile and reducing the number of things they can pick on can be a way not to be targeted. The idea that of telling him he “should be better than that” is just adding to the burden he’s already carrying of being forced to coexist with those little sociopaths. Is it somehow his fault?

I’ve been using this guy’s one for years. It’s called stretch video

https://gist.github.com/arpruss/74abc1bc95ae08e543b9b74f15a23b07

It’s not often I have to use it but if you ever watch something online where the uploader has messed up the aspect ratio you can just fix it just like that, no need to download and reencode or anything I love it.