FriendOfDeSoto

That’s great, I wasn’t aware of that.

The American fear of a proper ID system is puzzling to me. It’s constant fear mongering of overreach by the man and not enough appreciation of the benefits. The first one is a self-updating voter registry that eliminates the process of registering or having to check on your registration to make sure you didn’t get knocked off for no good reason. All people need to update their home addresses when they move. Another benefit is - if implemented well of course - that everybody could have a 2FA-quality chip in their pocket to allow for many services to be done reasonably safely online. The dreaded lines of the DMV come to mind. Another benefit is you could prove very quickly who you are, especially if fingerprints are on the chip, to counter mistaken identity arrests that may or may not have been instigated by a so-called AI.

So the government knows everything about you, sure. But it’s not a one-sided deal. And frankly, even if the government did not have this information on you before it turned tyrannical, it would ID you as a possible malcontent in no time. Your data is already available for sale on various data broker sites.

I realize that me preaching the benefits of a proper ID system to the Americans in times of 47 and ICE raids is a bit wonky. I am not going to speculate if the self-updating voter registry could’ve prevented 47. And ICE under 47 might find its job “easier.” But from what I’ve read and heard they haven’t exactly been detail-oriented public servants. When the rule of law breaks down everybody gets effed. And so-called illegal immigrants also have phones and use the internet so their information was also available for sale before stable genius returned to the orange office.

Of course there are dangers that need to be addressed. Access to the database needs to be tighter than a sphincter and every query needs to be logged. Every system will be abused. Checks and balances need to be there, ideally with a right to find out who looked you up and for what reason for everyone. I’d prefer a system embedded in law over internet data brokers.

Med al ret!

You do you et bon appetit. I’m sorry if I got hung up on that for no reason.

Maybe he likes being a tad unpredictable. If I had to choose if I wanted to be his friend or if I wanted to be stuck in an elevator with him for an hour, I’d clearly say neither, thanks. History will probably record him as a stirrup-holder of full born fascism.

I don’t like “belong” here. Pineapple is food. People like it, or like it in certain combinations, or they don’t. Highly concentrated uranium or arsenic really don’t belong in food. Pineapple is not the same as uranium.

If you’ve ever been a student or cash strapped you’ve eaten various uncommon combinations of food. You didn’t care what belonged together or not. And neither should anyone care in this regard. Outside of poison and allergies, we don’t need to be paternalistic about telling people what to eat or not. People who get internet mad about pineapple on pizza need to reevaluate their life choices.

When you’re in the top 5% it doesn’t really matter where you rank. You will never have to worry about money ever again.

He is an oddity that became a tech press darling, i.e. somebody to report on although not everyone liked him, through PayPal and then his Facebook investment. So he occupied more press real estate than other, long forgotten silicon valley or hedge fund founders. But the fact that he was a founder and successful more often than not makes him the embodiment of the American dream. The immigrant kid that didn’t enherit an emerald mine. The investor who didn’t have to rely on daddy’s wealth as much (or only) as 47. He stands out because he actually finished a degree, not like the Zuckerbergs and Gates of this world. I would say he’s more intelligent than some of those people as well, possibly more strategic. And he has opinions, many of which are controversial to say the least. And if Melon Usk is an example of the in-your-face out-of-touch billionaire and Bill Gates an example of the more reserved out-of-touch do-gooder, Thiel is the more reserved out-of-touch do-weird-shitter. He doesn’t mind the limelight but he doesn’t really seek it. The Melon shows no signs any more of any long-term planning. Like a bladder weakened by ketamine use he just pisses all over everything he happens to stand next to. Gates has an agenda and applies his wealth strategically - and whatever your opinion about the good he actually does - the intention is to do good. Thiel is like that but the intention is to do rightwing libertarian stuff. Quietly, if possible. But there are eyes on him because of his past press “career.” And I didn’t know about his sexual orientation until quite recently - why should anybody care? - but my guess is that a weird idea spouting gay conservative cannot escape the prying eyes of a, let’s face it, predominantly heteronormative press completely. And if you mix this all up you can see why his name keeps popping up. Especially when you consider who presses the diet coke button in the white house.

I think the stereotype is douchebag because people don’t think about all the possible legit reasons. I wear them when I have a migraine, often even at home. You could also wear them because they’re prescription and you forgot the other pair at home. Or you simply forgot you have them on in the first place. We shouldn’t judge but people like to judge. And they mostly judge douchebag because maybe more people wear shades indoors as an effort to build a personality around their empty shell of a self.

I don’t have much to say about the points you’re making here. I have a feeling after we sit down and discuss this over coffee/a beer we will find out that we’re pretty much on the same page.

The only thing I want to point out though it that the term “enshitification” was coined for online platforms. It describes a business catering full hog to the needs of the users to create a following, then sell access to that following to other businesses, until both followers and b2b customers are locked in and get milked for every cent possible. From the user POV that’s when the service enshitifies DVD and the b2b customers are between a rock and a hard place. Your cable example follows a similar mechanic but since it is not online it is technically not enshitification as dumped into the world as a term by Corey Doctorow.

That’s just minor pedantry that you’re naturally free to ignore as well. As I said before, I don’t see us disagreeing on the overall point you’re making. Very eloquently, I might add.

Edited typo

Thanks for the explanation.

Why am I not surprised? I stopped having any trust in that platform when they killed 3rd party clients. I would suggest everyone to leave reddit and watch it implode from afar.

Yes, it stings. It’s a habit. You still have nice subs in there, communities that make you happy. But you’re fiddling as the ship sinks. That’s the metaphor, isn’t it?

None whatsoever.

I am afraid you are “fucked” if you think AJ is an example of independent media and that YT numbers are enough proof for media suppression. Most people on this planet do not watch YT. And the ones who do tend to be influenced by their algorithms that continuously change. That makes YT numbers as slippery as an eel in a lubricant factory. By which I mean unreliable to start a conspiracy theory about a poor, cash strapped, impeccably impartial artisan media outlet from Qatar. Slash s.

Some of the technical info flew right over my head in the first article. What I took from the piece is that he has valid points so far as I can see and understand it. I would say nevertheless the author was a bit biased as well. And it’s 3 years old. It may still be accurate, IDK.

I use F-Droid and have been for a while and I’m not aware of any issues this could’ve caused me. But I’m also not using it for essential systems. Not for browsers, VPN, etc. I have downloaded games, a couple of notes apps, that sort of thing. I would never recommend you get all your apps from there. It’s an addition to Google or your usual poison.

Security experts will never be happy; that’s their job. The author is also talking about your threat model. Are you okay with certain risks? The truth is also that somebody could screw you over on Google Play. It may be less likely comparatively but not impossible. So you try to jump from rock to rock hoping no alligator catches you. So far no alligator got me.

I think the sound you’re hearing is a bunch of people creating throwaway accounts for this one. Not me though. I’m a saint.

Perp walks. Teachers in school in front of class. Other kids in school being mean. Public dress downs at work. I’m sure there are more. Not all perps walked reoffend. Kids get their shit together because they don’t want to be made to look silly in front of their peers. I think for some employees this works similarily.

Shaming only works if the shamed feels any. The doublers-down are often the ones who don’t feel shame. So it was the wrong tool for the job. Won’t work on 47 if you know what I mean.

Just to clarify: I would personally put this tool in the “break glass in case of last resort” section of the tool box. But I’ve worked with bosses who didn’t put these restrictions on themselves and it can work.

You could question their leadership qualities if you wanted to. That’s a benefit of arm chairing this stuff in an internet forum.

Just by origin of the word polyglot means you have many tongues. Tongues is of course well established as a stand-in for languages. If you can speak more than one, you fall under the definition.

I think people have attached more to the term than just that though. I’m thinking of well traveled and culturally sensitive as well. Somebody who would be alright no matter where you dropped them.

How many languages can your better half say good morning in? She might just be trying to pay you a compliment and you with your humilis gloriatio are not having it. In any case, I wouldn’t recommend going back to her with arguments obtained from a random group of internet users to settle your interpersonal disagreement.

I was shooting for “neutral you”.

I think you missed.

I assumed that you were also a fan.

You know what you do when you assume, don’t you?

Thus any course of action that happens to also serve it warrants scrutiny.

If that’s what you think I’m surprised you asked the question in the first place considering one of the binary choices you provided is essentially d-humping. Your mind is already made up. I also feel you’re moving the goal posts. You asked who is more idiotic, not whose behavior should be under more scrutiny.

So I wonder what “you” you, and from here on that means you personally unless otherwise stated, are referring to. Are you ascribing idiot-shouting behavior to me personally? Or are you referring to the neutral “you,” which can be replaced with “one?” The reason I’m wondering is that I have given no indication that I shout at idiots but your reply could be incorrectly construed in such a way that I do. Which then doesn’t make the motive warning any clearer also. Because it could be a interpreted as meaning I like to be “dominance-humping” and I ought to reflect on that. Or that my reasoning is too Darwinistic. Or that I shouldn’t judge tight calls by small statistical margins. Or that I like correcting people? Etc. It just isn’t clear.

If this was pointed at my personally then you in particular and one in general should keep in mind that the person answering a binary question of the calibre “Which is worse, the plague or cholera?” doesn’t necessarily need to be suffering from either disease to make an assessment. So looping back to your OG query: I would say it’s better not to shout at anyone in general. But I’m also sure you and I after careful deliberation could agree on some exceptions relating to your query that aren’t monkey business. E.g. the idiot could be in danger, the idiot could be a racist abusing the marginalized, the idiot could be hard of hearing, etc. This sort of longer discussion isn’t encouraged by a binary prompt.

If we have defined “idiotic” to a sufficiently objective degree, I think the idiot wins the race. The shouter - although not in the best manner - is at least trying to make the idiot aware of their transgression. It’s a reaction to the idiotic behavior, not out of the blue. And while it will not work in correcting the idiot’s behavior all the time, there is at least the chance that the reaction is memorable to the idiot - public shaming is s powerful tool - which could lead to reflection, and thus prevent a recurrence. It’s these small odds that tilt this seesaw of a question for me.