philippejara

How is that any different than facebook/whatsapp/etc? I can't comment on the encryption part but in a post NSA, which seems to have only worsened, trusting US publically traded companies is just as bad, russia isn't china, and for better or worse pavel seems to be an ideologue.

If you want really safe comms I don't know if any popular chat app would do the job, maybe signal? don't know much about it however.

People want to watch entertainment, when I was a kid watching the 100th documentary about egypt I wasn't thinking about getting educated, I was enjoying it because it was fun and interesting, and so was everyone else I knew. And if i'm honest they could be lying to me and I wouldn't have been able to tell, nor would I be bothered to go after archeology papers to fact check it.

I do lament the fall of the history channel because the documentaries were extremely fun, not really because I'm sad about missing the information on the mongols in the nth century. Hell the dragon: a fantasy made real doc in discovery channel was a blast, not really bothered it wasn't real, if anything it was a wake up call for people that believed everything they saw on there.

Popper was far less strict on the matter of "opinions" as your seem to portray, I quote:

"Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."

His position on opinions is that they're all fine, as long as they remain in the plane of opinions and are bound by rational dialogue. To him intolerance is pretty much physical violence or incitement to physical violence when faced with a logical argument.

How can you care about the NSA leaks when there are murders happening on the streets?!!

Equally nonsensical point.

The equipment is not sentient, it'll always come down to abuse of the equipment, the same way an automatic weapon doesn't create any problem by itself, but what people can do with it does.

Take a gander at drones in the middle east for a more extreme example.

to be fair whether mathematics is a science or not is debated[0], so your initial claim might very well stand true depending on which side one takes in the argument.

[0]:https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/10178/is-math...

I personally do, and nothing has changed for me since he took over. I would like to see some semblance of a proof when someone tries to be as bold as to claim something is demonstrably false, he's not talking about having a different experience he is saying as a matter of fact that it is a false statement.

For all the jokes about excessive sourcing that hacker news gets it's probably one of the things that keeps it from turning into yet another hearsay platform.

This is genuinely the only place in the internet right now I can actually read and have a decent discussion about musk without it either turning into a hate circlejerk or a flamewar, would be nice to keep it that way.

>Young people grew up with social media and are very savvy about segmenting their public persona from their private one. Young people understand intuitively that asking an edgy question on your public persona is an act of edginess in itself.

While that is true to a certain segment, I'd argue that the young people are actually worse than the older ones. There is a gap of those that experienced the internet before things like facebook/twitter became the face of the web, those i'd argue do fit the mold you're describing, the generation after them however? Their entire lives seem to be on the internet, with no regard for anonymity or oversharing with complete strangers, many dazzled by the idea of getting fame through those interactions and often turning what should be personal relationships with real friends into exclusively virtual interactions, and it compounds when you get older and you're further incentivized to put yourself publicly out there with LinkedIn and such. Of course there is a bit of a hyperbole but the point still stands.

Surely if that was being used to specifically increase sales an analogue of cancel culture wouldn't really do anything since the zeitgeist held that opinion somewhat, if it was enough to drive up sales for a company of ford's size.

This is a question without a general answer, because stigma changes on a person by person basis and there isn't a single thing that will end up immune to it, there is no better example of this taken to the extreme as some fringe groups holding the stigma of white supremacy over an "ok" symbol or a bowl cut[0].

The swastika is a bit more complicated because the western world's exposure to it isn't all that big, but I don't see how a symbol that is used by probably over 10% of the world population today and has been used for over 5000 years should be shunned, especially when you consider that it's not even the same symbol most of the time!

At the end of the day most of this stigma wouldn't be an issue if people would just stop assuming malice from others by default.

[0]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ok-symbol-hand-gesture-anti-def...

>No people are not free. Those symbols can land you in jail.

Aside from Russia which is hardly "western" and Germany are there other countries where the use of the symbol itself is an offense? I completely agree that the presumption of malice is silly, self-centered and it can cause unwarranted escalation however when push comes to shove it shouldn't go further than a neighbor's spat.

It doesn't really matter if there are 'bad intentions', there are plenty of people still using it today as religious symbol.

At the end of the day people are free to believe whatever they want from people using a symbol, but it will only betray their own ignorance in its history and still active use in the non-western world. The idea that a symbol still currently used by probably billions shouldn't be used because of connections only westerners make is peak eurocentrism/UScentrism.

I'm not sure they did to be honest. If I had to choose something to attribute the success of python to the general non-programmers i'd say jupyter notebooks are an order of magnitude more important than any of those things mentioned.

Especially when the idea of there being one obvious way of doing things is contradicted in probably the most used package of pandas, and even built in things like list comprehensions vs loops vs itertools, then couple that with the way it does variable passing.

Can't really agree that it is easier to read for laymen than other c-like languages of its day either, with the use of underscores for class methods and indentation defining scope.

Honestly if I wanted to really know why python was successful interviews with the authors of the notebook, pandas and the AI libraries would be my targets, cause in my view they're the ones that made the language a success.

I didn't notice that detail, fair enough, however where are the charger specs on the linked page? can't find anything to compare. And the only spec for the charger I could find is wattage https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MHJA3AM/A/20w-usb-c-power....

item c of "what is not covered by this warranty": https://www.apple.com/legal/warranty/products/ios-warranty-d...

Note that the same clause is present in the brazillian warranty.

>Seems pretty arbitrary to me, iPhone charges directly from any standard USB power outlet.

Quite often when you use those the phone will complain and tell you to use only the official chargers, and their warranty doesn't cover damage caused by third party chargers either. Once that's in play the argument that it can charge from any standard USB outlet becomes very shaky.

Brazil has a huge amount of problems with politicians and most of them are not due to a lack of understanding but straight up corruption, this is not one of them.

Apple has margin to spare, more than any other phone company I reckon, no way they'll leave a country as big a brazil over something like this. It shouldn't be a big ask to provide a charger when you sell a phone worth multiples of the minimum wage.

I do feel for the resellers that hold them in stock right now, not sure how these units will be treated.

> Your text is already faded enough that you must be clear that a lot of folks don't agree with your sentiment here

Funnily enough, so is yours.

What I highlighted pointed towards government becoming increasingly overbearing and ramping up surveillance on its citizens(NSA and patriot act), military extremism(patriot act again and the middle east), paternalism over other cultures(fear that the people would choose the "wrong"side in a country they invaded as an excuse to keep troops or to install proxy governments), and the list goes on.

You're at a point that covering true stories like the hunter biden laptop(that now journalists are verifying its authenticity) have made people like glenn greenwald persona non-grata in mainstream journalism circles, while having the intelligence agencies saying it is false. You have people that risked and are paying with their life to make information known to the public demonized because apparently leaking things about the candidate I like is bad, regardless of it being true. You have people asking for oversight for the contributions to Ukraine being labelled as russian assets(ie:enemy of our great state). You have intelligence agencies being labelled as some all knowing benevolent protectors of the populace not even a decade after the NSA leaks. The only thing that could be disguising it is because as it stands mostly the democrats seem to be on this publically, but make no mistake the moment push comes to shove the republicans will also take such position as they had taken before trump, and with thunderous applause from the "bipartisan" population if the current outlook is something to go by.

Fascism has been acting on the american society for a long time, Trump just coincidentally showed where the allegiances lied once someone that wasn't a career politician took over, luckily for them the man was an incompetent buffoon with his own laundry list of problems who got assimilated into the machine very fast, even if he would say otherwise.

If all of this for you isn't clear signs of fascism and instead trump, who mostly just inherited the actions of his predecessors is(making him just as much as the others I might add), we'll just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

>Obviously it's "top priority"! Is there any other acceptable answer?

the answer means nothing, yes, the supposed good action that triggered the question is the important thing. The only relevant part of the article is them claiming to have verified it, so it's Business Insider's word added to hers.

I'm not even going to touch the conspiracy theory madness, it's irrelevant, and the person in question has zero signs of being afflicted by it, her entire existence in the platform seem to have been focused on actually working against the issue.

Its also been pretty widely publicized twitter's issue with CP[0][1][2][3], and given how hastags are the way you find things in the platform it's natural that's the way they'd do it.

> Of course, she can't give out the hashtags and allow independent verification, yet somehow hordes of pedophiles already know these hashtags?

She is giving it out to journalists and apparently they are confirming it, it's not a tragedy that someone does not want to amplify possible child abuse, actually teaching even more pedophiles how to find it.

> How are they publishing those to each other, and if they have such a channel, why aren't they using that instead of Twitter?

Twitter is protected by its sheer scale, is huge making detection harder than dedicated sites, and is far far more stable, safe and accessible than some darknet website they'd have to run themselves on average.

> So who is she keeping the hashtags from then?

From the general public to not further humilliate the victims, from other pedophiles because its not some hivemind, the list goes on.

Not everything is about Trump, and you're falling for the same level of conspiracy if behind all this out of all this you see pizzagate Qanon.

[0]: https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-brands-blast-tw... [1]:https://nypost.com/2021/01/21/twitter-sued-for-allegedly-ref... [2]:https://www.theverge.com/23327809/twitter-onlyfans-child-sex... [3]:https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/child-sex-abuser-twitter

>There's a big difference between principled citizens who choose to leak information, and foreign adversaries of the US. I would have thought this was obvious but it's down to US citizens to decide the US election, and external interference should be met as the attack on the US that it is.

I can't agree with that, the election was decided by the US citizens, they saw the information and made their choice. Unless you're arguing that said leaks are fake as far as I'm concerned information is information, if the candidate did something the voter base wouldn't approve of and it was unveiled the source is completely irrelevant. Under those pretenses any kind of leak can be trivially attributed to some enemy and now its discredited, call those who report on it pawns of the $enemy_state and there you go. You can see this being attempted in real time in US politics, thankfully with waning success.

My point about the capabilities of the US espionage comes in when you factor counterintel and exposing falsehoods, as I said before my position is that information is information and the only thing that can be argued against information is whether it was fabricated or not. For an example, as far as I'm concerned the entire hunter laptop scandal being completely pushed under the rug by intel agents[0] is far closer to actual manipulation than the DNC e-mail leaks, because it was a lie that it wasn't real and conveniently no journalist wanted to fact check it, just to come out now 2 years later after the election is done and walk back on it. I'm citing this to try and make clear that the veracity is far more important than the source.

I do concede the point that arguing that just because the US can do the same supposed leaking of documents to another country doesn't change much, although assuming they're actual leaks i'd like them to.

[0]:https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-...

And what is stopping those patriotic principled leakers from leaking things to just about anyone else? If the republican party e-mails were leaked for example I can guarantee you'd have a huge amount of journalists willing to publish them, even if in the theoretical wikileaks wouldn't do it.

At the end of the day the US is most likely the country with the highest amount of espionage in the world, maybe barring china, it's not like they can't do the same as some supposed FSB spy.

Expecting anyone to be impartial is a big mistake, especially when you can conveniently persecute and try to kill said person and with that pretty much force them to cease being being "impartial" at the very least in the public perception. Under the circumstances laid out all it takes to discredit someone as an "useful idiot" is to persecute and corner them into "enemy territory".

Also let's take a step back and differentiate between something being of interest to exclusively US enemies, that would be a detriment to the US directly, or a matter of international policy, which is the case of the Ukraine position you cited. The Ukraine position is not a threat to the US either way, it's just a position in foreign policy.

Edit: It seems the case of an example of that exact alternative to wikileaks cited did exist already, by micheal moore of all people, focused on trump however. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-im-launching-trumpileaks-...

You mean the fascist that kept bombing a country his own invaded because of "self-defense"? the same one who presided over the biggest government surveillance leak in the entire history, and then made sure to hunt down the leaker into the only place that would provide him safety and now conveniently uses it to discredit him?

Or you mean the fascist warhawk that actually started several wars that ravaged the middle-east and passed the patriot act to give the government untold power over its citizens, both with bipartisan support I might add?

How can Trump be seen with such disdain in comparison when at worst he's just a more incompetent version of Obama with a social media addiction and republican slant. The NSA scandal was merely a decade ago, george w bush wasn't that far back either, how short are the memories. If anything his unconditional withdraw of all troops in afghanistan is the biggest anti-fascist action the last 3 presidents have done, although this one action certainly doesn't put him above being one given he wasn't even pulling the breaks on their actions beforehand.

Unless you wish to ask for people to openly post child porn guidance you're gonna have to rely on the people actually following the issue for years. For what it's worth business insider claims they checked said hashtags and the content was gone[0]. Said user is allegedly going to release today an article in a corporate outlet that did fact check it[1] so we'll see.

I have no reason to distrust her and can't see any reason for her to lie about it.

0: https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-says-child-sexual-... 1: https://twitter.com/elizableu/status/1595109108608544768

The rights to Mickey Mouse are about as productionless as any crypto, and I'd struggle to find anyone that doesn't think it would be a great investment.

Most governments that are so bad you need crypto are not that bad because of repression necessarily, but because of corruption or incompetence. Corruption or incompetence doesn't care enought to "shut down the internet" and if they do odds are a bad job will be done of it.

As it stands, without crypto, you are pretty much a hostage to visa, mastercard, discover, and amex to exchange money effectively, and those companies are opinionated to a disturbing extent about who they deny business with when it comes to something so important.

While those companies are not operated as some sort of common carrier of transactions crypto is essential for a free global society.

Apparently Trump of all people actually tried to make it so[0], but Biden seems to have taken it down.

[0]: https://archive.is/wrpvO

I'm not sure what you mean by "being a royal asshole politically". And yes, i'm pretty sure gp knows what destroyed his good-will with many, everyone knows, that doesn't mean it's his fault that the vultures are making an opportunity out of it. If having a right as a journalist is only contingent on you not giving opportunities for those rights to be taken away you don't really have it.

I do wonder however how things would look if he leaked the other way around, especially now that the american left has been morphed into the same warhawks from the bush era and pretty much rolled back the entire public perception grounds gained regarding government surveillance after the NSA leaks. This whole misinformation hysteria has just given them an excuse to implement patriot act v2 lite, and worst of all it's being exported and done with a heavier hand internationally in places where you don't have the first amendment.

"Economist"? at the very least say what economist it is, why should anyone care if a random economist says anything about anyone, half of them agreeing on anything is probably unheard of in the first place!

Now I am being facetious of course, but hopefully the point was made regarding the title. Most that would be drawn in would be people looking to wage their side on the crypto war using the comments as a battleground, completely ignoring the article.

Almost every single game with a group of regular friends will eventually become fun, and if he wishes to do the things you just mentioned he could do it in most source engine games with a lot more freedom.

How is that any different from every other company/individual making political donations?