cf141q5325

25 ms·

91.
by cf141q5325 3y ago
>Legislation can be written so that there is no bypass. It cant for existing profitable business models. You couldnt ban the google owned nuclear SLBM fleet if it already existed and represent the most profitable sector of the economy. I
92.
by cf141q5325 3y ago
> Let me play you the world's smallest violin for them. You miss my point completely and i am unsure how to reword it. Yes they are exclusively big players already, thats why it wont work through top down regulation and requires use
93.
by cf141q5325 3y ago
Bit off topic, but i think this is a good place to remind people that they should remember to enforce separation of two factor platforms. Attaching a modern smartphone you use for TANs for online banking to the machine you do online banking
94.
by cf141q5325 3y ago
Your point of this requiring user action matches my point exactly. There is a giant industry here. Any attempt at top down regulation will fail at that and get either regulatory captured or poked holes through for the big players.
95.
by cf141q5325 3y ago
There is a stupidity component here that i think got lost in the framing. The larger that becomes the more blame is functional to sustain your agency. You shouldnt be doing very stupid stuff, the only point at which that becomes a non issue
96.
by cf141q5325 3y ago
There are however limits if you dont want a dysfunctional bureaucracy try to micromanage you. You will always have especially vulnerable sections of society (kids, addicts ...), but you still cant treat everyone like that. Especially as wan
97.
by cf141q5325 3y ago
>This is mostly a result of a previous test, which revealed that in case of a catastrophe, most germans would not be warned (Sirens not functioning, cell broadcast was not used, ...) And failed yearly tests being ignored. It took the Ahr
98.
by cf141q5325 3y ago
Lack of security is likely working as intended, be it on the system level or with encryption often relying on certificate authorities. Fixing any of this would likely result in the intelligence agency threat scenario of "going dark&quo
99.
by cf141q5325 3y ago
Indeed, but i would argue that this is a good indicator that you have room for improvement here. Which i found to be amazing news. For example, depression is often characterized by black and white thinking and getting tunnel vision. You bec
100.
by cf141q5325 3y ago
I appreciate the response, but i have no idea what that means or entails. Do you mean this as a nsfw warning? I was more wondering about the advice to not visit the site because of the owner. I hold Daryl Davis in high regards and dont unde
101.
by cf141q5325 3y ago
>I would seriously advise people do NOT even visit this website. Please elaborate why.
102.
by cf141q5325 3y ago
In all fairness, that might be your bias talking. I dont know the site but have had great talks with weaponry nerds, they generally arent much stranger then train or history nerds. And pack the right amount of pedantry to be interesting. ed
103.
by cf141q5325 3y ago
I cant promise anything, especially as i am still pondering the overall scope of the project, but if this turns into something i will hopefully make contact. I am still considering the benefits and possibility of upfront structuring of info
104.
by cf141q5325 3y ago
>That's not the point of the study. Be that as it may, there is a big difference between not wallowing and ignoring/suppressing something. Especially if you leave Freud out. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti
105.
by cf141q5325 3y ago
I have been thinking about something similar. I think its usability will drastically improve once you are able to find overlaps and differences in meaning between the perspectives of different people/ideas. I would also suspect that it
106.
by cf141q5325 3y ago
Thanks for the feedback. I think this boils down to your ability to determine what is beneficial to revisit and what isnt. I would argue if you are able to differentiate the two reliably and are further able to tell that >There's no
107.
by cf141q5325 3y ago
Thats an unfair simplification the article doesnt allow for. There is no reason to throw out introspection with not engaging with toxic thought patterns. Especially as a lack of the former often leads to a helplessness regarding the later.
108.
by cf141q5325 3y ago
I dont disagree. But there is a big difference between not getting attached and pulled around by your negative thoughts and just ignoring them. The way out is agency over how you deal with reality, not better blindfolds in the short term.
109.
by cf141q5325 3y ago
When ever this notion comes up i cant help but wonder how good crashing and burning thanks to ignoring reality is for your mental health. Just because stuff isnt nice doesnt mean its safe to ignore. Its worth mentioning that dealing with ne
110.
by cf141q5325 3y ago
Thanks for mentioning that. Its the pro version and it apparently entails voice and text. Which makes it sound more like satellite phones then internet over satellite. Still, quite the interesting feature.
111.
by cf141q5325 3y ago
>Everyone. That's a huge group. With no safety checks to remain this way. Intent doesnt overrule outcome. And tor isnt a sufficient safeguard. You were also always free to stop looking, nobody is trying to force you to do that.
112.
by cf141q5325 3y ago
For what its worth, i do sympathize with your perspective. And yes, in a perfect world we wouldnt want the government anywhere near this. The problem is that we now are at the point at which it becomes a practical end to self hosting. Not b
113.
by cf141q5325 3y ago
Forcing people to peer and forcing people not to peer are as fundamentally different as the bill of rights and the death penalty. One keeps communication channels open, the other closes them. I choose what you frame as might lead to totalit
114.
by cf141q5325 3y ago
>I think we disagree on the totalitarian aspect of the echo chamber. That distinction you hope for does not exist. We arent talking about your frame of digital neighbors but an end to self hosting. How ever nice your story sounds isnt mo
115.
by cf141q5325 3y ago
>You are also claiming that you are arguing concrete scenarios and I'm arguing abstractions. I'm unaware of any government overthrows that occurred because some people were unable to use the internet due to their past use of it
116.
by cf141q5325 3y ago
I dont care what it is protected as, i am telling you what automatically happens once you try to poke holes into it. It shouldnt be a surprise to anyone with a functioning relationship to reality. Picture it as a shared communication bus ev
117.
by cf141q5325 3y ago
The only way you can equate censorship with banning censorship is if the death penalty and the bill of rights are also both just laws. The difference here is that its impossible to push society into a censored echo chamber through banning c
118.
by cf141q5325 3y ago
Making sure that we have robust system in place that makes silencing dissenting voices impossible. Because it does not work, you have nobody (and no institution) competent enough to decide this. And we will have to rely on this system if hi
119.
by cf141q5325 3y ago
>And if nobody will host them, it's not a totalitarian echo chamber, it's just "the people's will." Thats framing that doesnt change the end result. There wont be any cleaving but anything differing from dominant
120.
by cf141q5325 3y ago
We arent discussing technicalities here but actual consequences. >I think the burden is on those who think it should be a common-carrier system to justify why that's societally beneficial Thats a really easy way out of having to add

More ›