sascha_sl

git-annex by default will consider your data dead when it can't be checked in real time, but overriding will trust the data will survive offline forever.

I'd love for it to have some kind of expiry on it after which I need to fsck it.

The numbers provided by both countries are inconsistent with each other, and half of 2021 has no reported suicide in the State Department data. Please stop spreading this conspiracy theory based on statistics not being entirely consistent with the story, if they aren't even consistent with themselves.

https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1565311737553100800

crime.to is a bit different in that the owners and moderators themselves are involved and eventually get caught, whereas kiwifarms love to pretend it's merely a gossip site (even if people on it are not notable and the conversation exceeds gossip quite often). It's more the spiritual successor to 1337crew or carders (the later of which had a policy of all staff using names of greek OR roman gods - sometimes duplicates, which tells you all you need about it)

Also, Drachenlord is being harassed from essentially every german speaking website that doesn't have good moderation policies (hi pr0gramm) or doesn't enforce them (hi twitter); crime.to is not really the flashpoint. He also has a thread on Kiwifarms that's quite active.

The problem is that the US has outsourced hate speech laws to "the market". Instead of the government deciding what can be said, it is now corporations subject to the forces of capitalism.

To have any kind of reach to exercise your freedom of speech, you need social media. Your own site or any of the free speech absolutists options wouldn't get you too far (and they also contribute to radical bubbles, but that aside). This has always been true, but before it was TV Networks and other big media corporations deciding what to platform. Free speech with reach has always been an illusion.

But also, even the social media giants have issues enforcing their rules consistently.

The same hole on the law exists for Kiwi Farms. It's a website so vile, most corporations that aren't under obligation to provide services wouldn't - because it makes them look really bad. Cloudflare has been getting away with ignoring these forces for a while, but the heat's on. (Though interestingly, when it was about sex work, Cloudflare did not fight on their customer's behalf.)

I would really rather the US figures out a way to capture websites like Kiwi Farms in their legal framework, like most other countries in the world would.

Are the Proud Boys like a volunteer fire brigade because they provide "security services" too?

Making defamation lawsuits less inaccessible to a significantly poorer party would be a start.

I already live in an EU country - as do many of the people with threads on KF. I don't even have the minuscule amount of control voters in the US would have over this, and Cloudflare only cares about US legislation (as with the anti sex work legislation in the article).

If you would stop derailing the conversation with unfeasible solutions.

Oh, what willful ignorance. KF is the kind of "technically legal" operation that the charge of racketeering was invented for. Everyone knows what's happening and why things are laid out as they are, but nobody immediately responsible for the illegal act can be found.

But that still doesn't make Cloudflare the fire brigade. It is still their policy decision to value the freedom of speech of Kiwifarms more than the safety of those KF target, no matter how much they try to pretend they have an obligation to protect everyone that asks for it and are thus not at all partially responsible for enabling harassment - to the point of suicide in at least 3 cases. They don't have to protect them. That responsibility would be with lawmakers and the executive branch. Just as it would be their responsibility to enable feasible prosecution of defamation on the site. They don't do either.

I haven't checked, but I expect the chilling effect is getting most of them to not rock the boat too hard.

If you want an example for such targeting though, Liz Fong-Jones has a thread on Kiwifarms because she's outspoken and worked at Google (and thus being seen as more influential / more of a threat). The thread has also significantly slowed down after she left Google.

And all that while the company refuses to acknowledge that it is full backing.

Cloudflare loves to call back on the law when defending Kiwifarms, but then equate themselves to a public utility.

If the law intended for it, DDoS protection would be a public utility or at least a protected class of service that can't refuse customers. And if you say that it should be and the law is just lagging behind (and I'd tend to agree with you), I can say the same thing about the technical legality of a website that enabled and (indirectly) incentives doxing, harassment or even swatting (except on Kiwifarms, people might technically have a case for defamation, but good luck getting that prosecuted).

I do find your [1] oddly compelling, but not for the reasons you think. Wide political and social change (or progress, if you want to be an optimist) is rarely made through convincing people to fundamentally change, but generational shifts. You are merely finding yourself on the fading side of that shift.

That aside, it's very funny to accuse the left of shifting the overton window after a republican president that pardoned his co-conspirators, called for insurrection and then took top secret documents home - a crime he himself increased the penalty for. So much for law and order.

Now you're talking about the distribution in cis people, but you haven't accounted for HRT. Hormones are an immensely important part of sexual dimorphism, so much so that people with an XY chromosome and complete testosterone insensitivity (CAIS) usually only find out they're not XX in their teens when they visit their Gynecologist about lacking periods.

It is very hard to maintain "excess" muscle on feminizing HRT (the body has different muscle to fat target ratios depending on hormones), and impossible to (re)build it. Someone would have to work disproportionately hard on maintaining most of their "male advantage" a year in. I'm not an athlete, but every trans person you ask will tell you that the difference in strength is quite significant. Even if I can just tell from being unable to open jars.

That aside, I really recommend you invest time into that essay. It's an interesting tale about why we have segregated sports to begin with (believe it or not, women doing sports is a relatively recent thing) and how trans people really aren't the biggest interference to the unfairness of it all.

Are you sure this isn't just an assumption you're making based on your "ideological environment"? How do you know? Have you done the research? Do you actually know if someone who has replaced their testosterone with estrogen retains their "testosterone muscles"?

Spoiler: It's complicated, in no way straight forward, and if you descend into the ugly guts of it you'll learn that sports were never fair to begin with, and that we'd need better bracketing systems even if trans people didn't exist to have any semblance of "individual effort" determining outcomes in sports.

I didn't sign up to discuss this, but I'm very careful with people that have only started claiming to care about women's sports after this became a culture war issue. There are a lot of armchair takes that are obviously misinformed about the mechanics of HRT, and a lot of ignoring that most contact sports are already grouped into weight classes exactly because gender is a bad discriminator.

I would be in favor of sporting bodies deciding these things on a discipline-by-discipline basis, but at this point christian conservative think tanks (like the ADF) became involved and it has all just turned into such a shitshow that I don't trust anyone in these bodies to be impartial anymore either.

If you're interested in a nuanced discussion, may I recommend Mia Mulder[1]? I promise, it's not a straight up arguing for one side exclusively video essay.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdT1PvJDRo4

I'll be impressed if he has Hasan Piker on.

That's not just a random bar I set, it's been pretty heavily requested - but everyone knows it wouldn't happen because of prior criticism.

Even Tim Pool invites people to the left of the liberal democratic baseline (that I'd call center-right at best, but I'm also used to a more european notion of left and right) occasionally. Why not the JRE?

The Bernie interview was great, but it was a tactical campaign move. He wasn't going to be too contrarian with Joe when the audience is Joe's.

What are you appealing to here? It's one of the most extreme forms of contact sports, but it's sanctioned. Injuries are commonplace, not something trans people exclusively inflict.

And how is it related to the question at all? I am not interested in discussing if Fallon Fox is a good person, good sport or good representative of trans people. I'm discussing Joe Rogan calling her a man being indicative of transphobia on the JRE. Just like OJ Simpson being convicted would not justify calling him the slur with N.

I literally did mention that as one notable exception?

Blair White is a hardline transmedicalist who called usage of puberty blockers "child abuse" and self-describes as "center-right".

She might be trans, but she really is on one ideological line with Shrier und Soh. I'm not sure if White would call for all transition to be banned when opportunistic (as some members of the GOP do now), whereas I have doubts about Shrier and Soh being honest about finding transition acceptable in principle, but that's really the only difference.

Or are we not talking about the same person?

The JREs guest roster only has two flavors. Right wing and "I'd rather not go too much in depth about my politics". There were maybe 5 episodes in the history of the show where Joe is confronted with left wing talking points, and aside from the Bernie episode it was always an accident.

Notably, the one other exception is Joe calling bullshit on Ben Shapiro's claims.

The show has never invited anyone in favor of affirmative trans healthcare, for instance. But they did invite Debra Soh and Abigail Shier almost purely because they were against it.

But because the JRE pretends it's a free speech zone where no opinion is unheard, it creates a very biased view of public opinion in viewers. A division into "the woke mob" of ideologues and the "intellectual dark web" of people that are supposedly free of ideology. The show is massively contributing to what it says it hates.

But also, a whole lot of other things I didn't ask for that are hard to entirely opt out of.

I've not seen one place that has escaped this problem though.

Something is either old and nobody feels like fixing it or something doesn't fit into the current constraints of the platform featureset. So they build something on their own, probably undocumented and without consulting the supposed DevOps team, but still using parts of the platform that have not been declared an API. But when you want to exercise the freedom you supposedly built with your platform, all these edge cases fall back on you and inhibit change. "We can't change the ingress controller, we rely on this implicit behavior of it" "You can't change how database credentials are provisioned, we pulled these from the Cloud SQL console and comitted them to git". And facilitating any change as soon as you can cover the use-case is a fight with stakeholders and POs that I usually have no nerve for. "Why do we need to do anything??? It works?". And then you get blamed when it breaks. I love this job.

>without even following it through and testing it to begin with

You do realize that many companies will prosecute people just "following through and testing it", right?

Though the person you did say it to very likely has an international warrant out for them anyway for pissing off the DoD, so I guess it's all water under the bridge.

Your false equivalence doesn't interest me. This "but the others are just as bad, therefore it's okay" mentality that has almost become an ideological reflex really needs to be added to the things HN considers bad contributions. I could feed an ebooks bot HN comments and get these exact words out.

"making fun" is putting it lightly. They will dig through your accounts, archive everything you say, interpret it the worst way possible. And if that doesn't work, they'll also sometimes outright make shit up (also known as defamation). Usually, for trans people, some groomer narrative is established.

It's essentially high grade stochastic terrorism. They hand you a gun and tell you where to aim, but then get upset when someone implies they encourage pulling the trigger.

Those affected also don't often talk about it, because it encourages even more harassment.

It's not like the IP range of the origin servers isn't known. It's more that Cloudflare is the one thing that makes the site financially viable.

Shadow is now available the same day, probably because they almost doubled the price.

The intent behind policy loading in Chrome is to allow an MDM to configure the browser, not for distros to not write a real patch.

Reporting that there is a policy is no bug, but maybe there should be a way to signify that it's customized by your software vendor (i.e. signed and keys are compiled in) and that it just sets the default search engine.

Chromium does change the message to "This device is managed by <google workspaces domain>" if attached to Chrome Enterprise.

Fedora did this for a while to inject the word "Fedora" into the User Agent. They eventually stopped because users were similarly spooked.