thecrash

It's important to note that there are very many Jews in the world who are not Zionist and many Jews in Israel who disagree with the Palestinian genocide.

They're not the majority, but there are still a lot of them.

Attacking civilians has always been "controversial". As a civilian myself, I would be pretty worried if this changed.

It's scary that you bring up the question of whether Rene Good was under arrest or not at the time she was killed. As if it were legal or justified to execute people for failing to cooperate with their own arrest. It's scary because you're not the only person who believes this - many in ICE and other police agencies hold this belief, and by repeating it you encourage them to kill again.

That's the trouble though - those friendly neighborhood sites can generally be assumed to be appropriate for kids, but if we create the expectation that they must ensure they are appropriate for certain age brackets simply by virtue of being online, those sites will cease existing.

Instead of running their own websites, they'll migrate to a platform like Facebook. That way Meta handles the burden of moderation and the legal complaints for the inevitable moderation failures.

I think this might not be true though. This is like saying a marathon runner can walk like an amputee using a prosthetic.

Just like anyone else with a disadvantage, people who aren't that smart develop diverse compensatory strategies to work around their intellectual limitations, and these can look very different from popular caricatures of "dumb guy". A stupid person is not as simple as a smart person might imagine.

This case is not important because of Greenpeace, it's important because of the implications for free speech in the US. They are not being bankrupted because they took the wrong stance on nuclear, they're being bankrupted for supposed defamation and incitement against a major energy corporation.

This is a precedent that will be used to attack all kinds of civil society organizations when they threaten the profits of major corporate interests. Including the civil society organizations which you do agree with.

Some of the jurors had financial ties Energy Transfer, the district is heavily conservative and economically dependent on the oil industry. The deck was massively stacked against Greenpeace at trial.

Energy Transfer had previously attempted other suits which failed to get any traction because the claims are essentially Trump-style conspiracy theories about who is "pulling the strings" and "paying for" a massive decentralized protest movement. But they got lucky on this one. One of the advantages of having so much money you can just burn it on questionable lawsuits until one succeeds.

It reminds me of https://sandstorm.org/

It's weird that you won't come out and say what you think is "going on" though. I've given the explanation that the vast majority of people waving Mexican flags in LA would give: they are expressing that they're proud to be Mexican, or of Mexican heritage, and are sick of being treated like they're less than other people because of that heritage.

What is your explanation? I suspect that it's something along the lines of: "people waving foreign flags are signaling their intention to invade the US", but that you don't want to say it overtly because it's obviously a racist talking point from right-wing media.

I consider myself quite liberal, but waving a Mexican flag at these events just makes me think you can fuck right off with that bullshit.

I'm confused, you consider yourself quite liberal but you think it's bullshit for Mexicans in the US to celebrate their heritage?

Your concerns about a majority oppressing a minority are well-founded, but a system where people vote for career politicians don't seem to be moderating this problem - if anything it's exaggerating it.

If you trust the general population to vote a marginalized person into office in order to push legislation which benefits that marginalized community, why wouldn't you trust the general population to pass that legislation directly?

The only explanation I can think of is that you think that professional political representatives will have better ideas than the general population.

Unlike Apple, Google's main business isn't selling hardware, nor do they use hardware as the chokepoint for controlling their ecosystem.

It could change in future devices, but currently there's not much stopping you from doing whatever you want with your Pixel's software.

Your problem statement is effectively "I want to share access to my documents very informally with people who don't care to have any security practices, but still keep them secure"

There's another way of sharing in cryptpad though, which is for each user to create an identity/account. Once those you're collaborating with have accounts, documents and folders can be shared by granting access within cryptpad's UI. No secrets have to be circulated.

Builds are signed by the software publisher, not the Play Store. So the store alone couldn't corrupt releases, it would need collaboration by the publisher. (Google does have a service for app developers where they keep and manage your signing keys for you, but it's not required)

While the bike is stationary there's limited options for moving the bike relative to your body. While the bike is moving, you can make small steering adjustments which move the bike left or right relative to your body, which helps re-balance the body-bike stack. The faster forward you're moving, the faster these steering adjustments take effect.

because they do non-free parts now they are likely to make more of it non-free later, is that the argument

Yes, that's one indicator of how the incentives are structured, though there are other factors to consider too - mostly regarding where the money comes from and who is involved in the decision-making.

Perhaps you find it dystopian that people make predictions about future behavior and use them to inform their decisions about who to trust. It's very common though, and is the basis for the concept of reputation.

Or semi-automated scammers trying to claim the ad revenue from videos for themselves.

It has to do with the way power and incentives are configured within the project, and therefore what can be expected of the maintainers in the future.

For some people/use cases, the threat of developers rug-pulling a tool you depend on is not a big deal as long as it's good right now. But in many situations the tool which has less features but also less incentive to rug-pull wins out.

It's both. Free software is a more efficient mode of production because it maximizes the exchange of ideas about how best to build software. It's also a more libertarian mode of consumption because it maximizes freedom of choice for users.

This is what the Tor Browser is designed to do, and it does it very well (all in userspace no less). The main drawback is that some sites don't render as nicely and occasionally a site simply doesn't work.

If you want an HTTPS ingress controller that's simple, opinionated, but still flexible enough to handle most use cases, I've enjoyed this one: https://github.com/SteveLTN/https-portal

As you point out, decades ago privacy was a widespread social value among everyone who used the internet. Security through cryptography was also a widespread technical value among everyone (well at least some people) who designed software for the internet.

Over time, because security and cryptography were beneficial to business and government, cryptography got steadily increasing technical investment and attention.

On the other hand, since privacy as a social value does not serve business or government needs, it has been steadily de-emphasized and undermined.

Technical people have coped with the progressive erosion of privacy by pointing to cryptography as a way for individuals to uphold their privacy even in the absence of state-protected rights or a civil society which cares. This is the tradeoff being described.

By mistakenly declaring the existence of certain packages at scale, the model causes those packages to be created and published. What initially seemed like a hallucination was in fact hyperstition...

An interesting thing about labor disputes like this is they're presented as quasi-political stories, where people eagerly argue "for" or "against" the union or corp as though they were political parties or philosophical camps or something.

But as with most economics, it doesn't really matter what you think is fair, or who has the best justification. These are simply economic forces testing each other, and whichever is strongest will prevail.

People in the US are so accustomed to working class people being universally disempowered that we find it perverse and "upside down" that some workers could actually have the economic force to make demands and have them met. Meanwhile employers routinely make arbitrary demands and have them met. It doesn't even occur to anyone to argue about them, because it's recognized that employers simply have the power to demand whatever they want from their employees, and that this is natural and reasonable.

The difficulty is that owners don't just voluntarily hand out "fair shares" to workers who agree to play nice. The only reason workers get paid at all is because if they stopped getting paid, they would stop working.

Once enough automation is introduced, the owners really have no incentive to pay a fair share to anybody whose labor they no longer need. So any promises to "share the wealth" that comes from automation ring hollow.

That looks better from your position, but if your proposal was a better deal for port workers, they would probably be asking for it in negotiations.

The port workers are negotiating based on what is best for their careers, not what would be optimum for society broadly.

Almost everyone does this with their own career - we push for more favorable wages, conditions etc simply because we want them and we believe our value to our employer justifies them.

Rarely does anyone else complain about this. The difference is that union workers do it at scale, and are therefore often more effective than the rest of us. So it seems like they're getting an unfair deal, but there's nothing unfair about it - they're just better negotiators.

I would rather be manipulated by private industry than controlled by government. I cannot out vote a majority, but I can out wit a billboard.

Another way of saying this is that you would rather be controlled through methods which are subtle, novel, and difficult to put a finger on than through methods which are overt and fit traditional narratives of control.

The extreme suspicion of commercially introduced anthropogenic agents seems a bit ridiculous in both natural ecology and the human microbiome. Prove this compound conclusively safe, but not these other ten million compounds we're just going to allow to run wild.

With endemic organisms (or viruses) they just are going to run wild regardless of how we feel about it. There's no point in banning a naturally occurring algae because excluding it from the environment is not a practical option.

The only time when we have any strong control over what organisms are in an environment is when they don't yet exist there, but we have the ability to introduce them. This is our only technical choke-point, so it makes a lot of sense to make a big deal of that decision, and probably to be quite conservative about it. You can always let the cat out of the bag later, but you can never get it back in.

This view is unpopular because it is shallow and unserious. A vague call for people to "organize" and "make nations" as a solution to their problems hand-waves away the interesting and important practical problems which face people who actually do try to organize to create alternatives to the dominant political order.

In particular, the campaigns and efforts of those organizers are undermined and attacked through pervasive surveillance.

Tor is not a substitute for political organizing, in this age it's a necessary precursor.

Maybe rather than a big info explaining that there's nothing to see, it could be a big info explaining that "source IP address" is useless as evidence of a crime, because, as this server and many, many other proxy services demonstrate, the IP listed as the origin is in no way guaranteed (or even likely) to be the actual origin of the traffic.

It's like raiding the home of the mail carrier because someone got drugs in the mail. Sure, it could technically be that the mail carrier is also a drug dealer. But when it comes to the USPS, the identity of who delivered the contraband package is not a useful data point for investigating the crime, and acting otherwise is willful ignorance.