[email protected]

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700

https://web.archive.org/web/20250221181422/https://www.thedailybeast.com/former-intelligence-officer-alnur-mussayev-claims-kgb-recruited-donald-trump-under-codename-krasnov/

https://archive.today/ohI5R

Altice failed to terminate repeat infringers whose IP addresses were flagged in these copyright notices, the lawsuit said.

So the record label thinks it should have the power to cut off people’s internet service, upon which most people depend for at least some basic essentials of living, by simply accusing them of copyright infringement.

I hope the record label is severely punished for this abuse of the (publicly funded) justice system.

I’m going as far back as the 1400s, and your 1810 usage doesn’t match any common meaning of “snuff out”, so I don’t think it really applies here. But thanks for the interesting etymological diversion. :)

In any case, polygraphs still cannot put an end to leaks, so I stand by my original interpretation.

I see your line of thinking, but let’s also remember that polygraphs wouldn’t end leaks even if they really were lie detectors. The most they could do in that fictional scenario would be to reveal the leaks; to sniff them out. To snuff them out would require some additional, separate action.

Also snuff out applies to candles only because the snuff is literally part of a candle’s wick. The phrase is not being used literally here, which leaves us with the common non-literal meaning: to murder.

I still think the most charitable interpretation is that author confused it with sniff out, and failed to consider the grisly meaning of what they wrote.

1. Is thedailybeast.com considered a reputable news source?
2. To snuff out is to kill; usually murder. Did the author mean sniff out?

https://archive.today/Mn7tC

https://archive.today/uwd3g

It also seems that the headline currently on the article is different and switches out

Both are present in the article; they don’t switch out. One is the title (as you can see in the title bar of a desktop web browser) and the other is the top-level heading of the text.

Looks like Lemmy picked up the former, which makes sense considering the document structure. BBC probably should have used the same phrase in both places.

To be clear, PuTTY is a common tool for accessing networked computers. There’s nothing wrong with the tool itself. The problem here is the access being granted (via the tool) to sensitive data that should not be accessible by these people.