stormbrew

> Trust me

Trust me when I say I'm aware and that I have very specific reasons to feel the way I do.

But the thing is that cf absolutely is profiting off this. They provide this service to make themselves indispensable, to make themselves an attractive product for people to use. By holding the line here, they will drum up plenty of business that's really happy about their stance, even if it only toes the line kf crosses with impunity.

The goal of the campaign against cf (and anyone else providing them services) is to make it less profitable to provide services to kf. This is the only tool left in the capitalist world we live in.

What cf is doing here is less like advocating for free speech and more like the social version of providing a free open smtp relay. They obscure the true cost of doing something reprehensible.

And they do it at great financial expense completely by choice, because it likely drums up more business for them than it costs.

> I don't think that specific passage was in reference to KiwiFarm's paid plan.

I didn't say it was? I don't see why the fact that cf is paying for their ddos protection instead of kf paying for it themselves is really relevant to the enablement of harm.

Honestly that makes it even worse: in the other situation, cf is taking money from a bad actor and funneling it towards a good one (both allegedly). Here cf is paying expenses (probably in the marketing line of their expense sheet) to keep kf accessible, including storing, replicating, and distributing their content, doxes and all.

> This is the specific contradiction I'm trying to avoid.

I think this is a contradiction of your own making? The problem people have isn't that the targets of kf are being "silenced" in some Renaissance ideal sort of way. It's that they are put in a position of fearing for their own lives and the lives of the people around them. There's no contradiction here unless you think the people who want the site to stop are secret free speech absolutists.

Anyways, while we're talking about perfect worlds where police actually do anything about stuff like this and no one has to resort, in my perfect world the internet doesn't break because cf does, and cf isn't even in a position to arbitrate speech. But we can't always get what we want.

> the latter makes me more hopeful as someone in that specific minority community.

I'm curious what you think the "balancing" donation/action/whatever cloudflare could do to counteract the very real harms kf causes are?

This isn't a political action group that takes donations and lobbies. It's a site where people's personal information is offered up to anyone who wants it, knowing that many of those people want to do harm with it. The owners and moderators know all of this and both allow and encourage it.

I think this kind of "but we donate!" approach is both an admission that they enable harm, and a completely inadequate to the situation here.

Yes, this should be an issue for law enforcement. But this has been going on for years and nothing has been done, in spite of many efforts being made and many people literally going into hiding due to harassment from this site.

So how is cloudflare going to make this one right to their ERG?

Most of the time I don't really want to have my yubikey on me all the time (in particular, I no longer have need of regular keys in my day to day life so my keychain isn't as important as it once was). I'm happy enough to put a cert on a key, maybe with an expiry time, every now and then or on first use.

And it means I have to care less about what agent I'm running most of the time.

I think this is true if you only really have one or two computers you use ssh from regularly but if you have a few or you get new ones frequently you can get back to that experience of not having to frequently generate and distribute public keys by using a yubikey to sign local keys and then your authorized_keys only needs the cert authorization in it.

JIT goes back a lot farther than the jvm. I think the first recognizably modern implementations were for Self and Smalltalk. The people responsible for those were largely involved in bringing the idea to the jvm afaik.

I don't think that's really accurate. A passive low bandwidth tb3 cable is basically just a usb3 cable with a defined set of capabilities and a certification. OP wanted power and video, that's what a tb3 cable provides.

If you're literally only using it to carry DP? I suppose. If you're actually using it as a docking cable and you're expecting it to carry usb, video, and power then I think you might have really unreasonable expectations of what it takes to carry all that in one cable and how cheap that's ever likely to be.

if you only need 20gbps (so basically, you're not trying to run a bunch of 4k monitors over one cable) you can get passive 2m tb3 cables that, if certified, are probably higher quality than rando usbc cables, and I don't think that those would be likely to be more capable. Eg: https://www.amazon.com/Certified-Plugable-Thunderbolt-20Gbps...

If you want higher bandwidth and longer you can get active cables or optical ones, but those are obviously more expensive (it's better to think of them as their own electronic device than a cable).

The easiest way to guarantee these things is to get thunderbolt 3 or 4 cables if you want to have anything beyond basic USB 2 or 3 features. They generally have a lightning bolt on the plug casing.

... On earth. Again, this is a sample of one.

But also, those articles aren't about facts, they're about books. Books that make an argument, maybe even a compelling one, but still just an argument. There's plenty of stuff in both those wikipedia articles about the rough edges around the ideas they present. In so far as they "prove" anything they only prove that these things are descriptive of the reality we perceive -- it takes a lot more to prove universality than mere observations of the nearby world.

> You need oceans and geologic activity for life

For life like our life that is. There's so many assumptions here.

(2) seems like the key one to me. We seem to actually be quite "lucky" (in the short term) that it took a epochal hot minute for something to evolve to consume dead life so it could just accumulate to such a degree that we now burn like, trillions of ancient dead microorganisms to drive around the block.

But now we're not only relying on physical phenomena but on psychological ones and there lies the typical mind fallacy writ large. The prisoner's dilemma, technological overreach, etc are things characteristic of human brains but there's no reason to believe they're universal.

It's not even clear that those psychological factors are universal across human history, since we only really know much about a few thousand years of it.

> it is plausible that any major new source of energy is going to disrupt the previously prevailing equilibrium somehow

Why?

Anyways even if I grant that, we then get to ask why a change in equilibrium universally results in catastrophe? Certainly the weeds in my unkempt garden would disagree that the lack of equilibrium there is a bad thing.

To be honest even the hypothesis that where we are now was inevitable for us seems sketchy and unsupportable. What if we'd had a nuclear race instead of a space race? We actually found alternatives to fossil fuel long before we reached a crisis point.

I agree the details don't matter, which is precisely why there's no reason to believe (2) or (3) is universal other than that it's our own experience.

You are taking our details and extrapolating them to a universal filter.

Most people die of old age. A very small number of people die of being hit by rocks falling from the sky. Only one of these is a broad filter for who survives into the next century that everyone has to go through, but if you only knew the life of one person you could not say with certainty which one it was.

This assumes a lot of things about alien physiology, structure, and tolerances are the same as humans. It's not hard to imagine the possibility of a species arising that either is less affected by a greenhouse effect or at maybe exists in an environment where it doesn't happen.

That's not even getting into the possibility of different paths to energy production.

This is always a problem with any Fermi paradox thought experiment. We're extrapolating so much from a sample of 1 and we understand so little about even that one case.

That is what I said a few posts up. It's a policy I felt uncomfortable with even then. I just wanted to clear up that we didn't leave individual bad actors on the site to my knowledge.

There's a lot of grades of density between "standard American yard big enough to keep a sheep dog entertained" and "can't have even a fire pit" and if it's a house, even most higher density houses still manage to have enough room for a yard with a fire pit and maybe some trees.

But here's the thing: all those big spaced out houses with big yards leave less room for trees and parks that make everyone happy. Suburban spaces also tend to be bereft of trees overall because no one can stand to have their lawn 2m shorter so the street can have a boulevard.

I mean, you just can't have a walkability score for an entire large city. There's a lot of variation. You have to look at specific neighborhoods.

This is especially true in north America where cities all went through a huge conglomeration effort in the second half of the 20th century and absorbed their suburbs.

This just isn't at all true unless you define "house" as exclusively large lot single family homes with big back and front yards. Most dense and walkable places in the world are not full of high rises, they're a mix of high density houses and low to medium density apartments.

This mix is really rare in North America, at least and especially north of Mexico, but it does exist.

To be clear, we didn't leave individual predators on the site. We did whatever we could to remove them and helped the police catch them if there was enough evidence.

It's the reputation we let stand.

Maybe. That's a somewhat different issue though. The police had us implicitly make the site more attractive to predators, making it even more dangerous than it could have been at a baseline while still having us work hard to prevent it.

On the issue of the baseline, though, I think this is a tricky thing. The alternatives teenagers used at the time were far more lax in their enforcement and moderation policies, but because they were made by bigger companies they got a pass from parents.

The idea that we can keep teenagers completely away from dangerous things on social media feels a lot like abstinence education to me. The reality is complicated.

But I don't think we were perfect - tbh I don't think we were at all well equipped to the responsibility. But I do think we tried.

This kind of cognitive dissonance is, I think, not unusual. I once worked for a website that was largely used by teenagers and we cooperated extensively with police to deal with predators on the site, but were largely told to keep that fact hush hush so they could use us as a honeypot.

Guess what parents thought of us.

People like to make fun of ipv6 adoption rates but I'm pretty sure we'll all be dead and dust before srv becomes much more than a niche curiosity. It has similar chicken and egg problems but much less financial motivation behind it.

I think the thing is that if you actually need only 24ish bits worth of addresses for something and it doesn't need to be routable, ipv6 just adds a lot of baseline complexity ipv4 doesn't have unless you go out of your way. Ipv6 isn't just an address extension, it's a whole ass architecture unto itself.

> The conservative perspective is not, and has never been, that poor people deserve to stay poor.

It's a good thing I didn't say it was then, isn't it? I'll help you, if you really want to try to strawman what I said, it would be closer to: "the conservative perspective is that bad people deserve to be poor."

But I do think "poor people stay poor" is the net effect of conservative policies, because they prioritize other things over lifting people out of poverty, as you're doing in this post.

Instead they focus on lifting the "right people" out of poverty. Because that's the main reason to be able to pick and choose your charity: to make sure it goes to the people you think deserve it, or will use it right, or so on.

The phenomenon I'm describing here has nothing to do with climbing any ladder, corporate or Maslow. Being bored for 8 hours a day every day and not really even being able to distract your brain from it like you potentially can with less mental labor is just not very pleasant, and many people can't just "put up with it" for years on end without it turning into self-harm.

"significantly better in the sunlight" is not how I'd describe any pre-backlight Gameboys, honestly (including the original). The levels of light in which you could usefully play them were a very narrow band that I would describe as "lots of ambient light but no direct light at all". Hell even most of the front lights you could mount on a Gameboy created unviewable hotspots of light around the edges.

eInk has a much much wider range of workable light levels than any lcd I've used, with or without a backlight. The recent trend away from diffusion layers on lcd glass has also made it a lot worse.

The problem is that the conservative perspective would largely rather go without these net benefits than see someone they think is undeserving, or worse "immoral" in some way, get any benefit.

That's why we have means testing at all: not to prevent people from needlessly getting benefits, but to prevent those who are undeserving of them from getting them.

A lot of things make more sense when you understand this imo, and stop trying to frame other people's views into your own moral framework (giving you the mistaken impression that they're hypocrites about it).