traviswt

This is far longer than it needed to be. It’s a rant. A borderline incoherent one.

There is a massive confusion here between anonymity and the physical/online distinction. Anonymity is always hard, even in real life. There’s a reason criminals like masks!

Free speech is the guiding principle because nothing else makes sense and inevitably devolves into hive mind.

Platforms should not be figuring out what speech to limit, they need to figure out how to avoid being publishers. The problem isn’t that they’re hosting bad content, the problem is that they’re promoting/publishing it.

Maybe losing faith and selling out?

Perhaps the key here is the cat saw only its ears first, which looked like two potential targets. Then it had to reprocess after it realized they were attached.

You can choose it at time of either sending a new email or replying. From the sending identity drop down, pick *@kingcharles.tld, and then it will populate the From field with <@kingcharles.tld> and you type in front of the @ sign whatever you want, no prior setup.

In practice, this becomes “good intentions prevent punishment of bad behaviors.” It becomes a way for kind incompetence to belittle wise disagreement.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

It is an answer to the question “Why is free speech important?”

Nobody questions the importance of individual thought. Collective thought might even be more important. By squelching free speech we lose the ability to think collectively.

Free speech is important because thought is important.

Wow I didn’t realize it but you’re very right about those two. Can’t even remember the last time I saw anything related to them.

So, does banning individuals from social view preferentially on one side actually shift the Overton window, or centrism itself?

Speech is the mechanism of collective thought.

There is one belief everyone must share for western society to function: humans are special.

If you disagree and equate owning a chicken to owning a human, then I have no reasoning which will satisfy you or your hypothetical.

Our entire western society is built upon humans being special and having dominion, over both plants _and_ animals.

Just think through the “levels” of chicken life:

1. Let die naturally of old age 2. Slaughter after a productive life 3. Slaughter mid life because disease 4. Slaughter mid life because money (e.g., price of feed) 5. Slaughter/cull young for sexing 6. Use fertilized eggs 7. Prevent fertilization, use unfertilized 8. Eliminate laying of eggs

Prevention of life is death in the limit.

Animal welfare should not focus on if an animal dies if the alternative is for it to never live at all. Any amount of time, even a day after hatching, is greater than zero.

Instead we should focus on quality of life and how humane the death is.

You don’t slaughter a chicken to get its eggs.

On a more serious note, why do ethical vegan proponents feel it is better for an animal to never live at all? To be devoid of purpose due to lack of existence?

I worry this coupling will make it harder for laws to evolve. What would GDPR look like if the EU had to coordinate with the US? Probably some muted, compromised version.

I don’t think this is wise.

With the internet and Google translate, you can easily go read for yourself. And it’s still pretty nutty with no western filter applied. The accidentally published victory unification speech is particularly crazy:

https://web.archive.org/web/20220226224717/https://ria.ru/20...

You are absolutely doing the right thing! Ignore the hate here. People in the comfortable tech world have trouble with uncomfortable truths, and Russians right now are facing a harsh uncomfortable truth: citizens are collectively responsible for their leaders.

I’ll pray for your employees and for you. Namecheap deserves its potent reputation, and this tiny momentary backlash blip will fade almost instantly.

Your conscious will be clear forever. Слава Україні!

You’re very correct. The most illogical position to take is that Russia will stop with Ukraine. It is true that Putin has genocidal wishes against the people, but just like Hitler what he really loves is power and conquest.

I have family in this exact situation. Four on the call a few days ago, two defending in Ukraine and two preparing to invade. My Ukrainian family was trying to educate them on why what they were doing is wrong, and show them all the lies. There was no response from the Russians but silence.

Propaganda is scarily powerful. These videos you see are real, their mental breakdowns are real.

“Let me do whatever I want or I’ll nuke you.”

If we do not save Ukraine due to our own fear, then that’s the effective precedence Putin will have just set. Russian conquering Ukraine is an _escalation_ from NATO perspective.

You are writing as if Putin is a rational actor. That presumption could not be more wrong. Russia invading Ukraine is already so illogically asinine that nobody should claim to have even the slightest idea what Putin will actually do in the future. He is chaos.

NATO receives no benefit by standing by and letting Ukraine fall. The next fight would be on NATO soil, against a battle hardened, victory spirited aggressor. Oh, and he would know for a fact his nuclear threat worked like a charm.

Now is the time to stop Russia’s aggression once and for all, nuclear threat or not. Putin has never gotten less crazy. There is zero reason to assume a Ukrainian victory would pacify him. We will win handily against any future conflict. But why choose a harder victory tomorrow with one less ally, when we could have lasting victory today?

Why did you just fact check hyperbole?

Disclaimer: I am a very happy Starlink customer that has no other option for internet besides terrible LTE.

Starlink never originally advertised the ability to transfer service or even sell your hardware. It was very clear from the beginning you had to use it for the address you provided, and their communication was very clear to that effect.

You are definitely correct that logically you should be able to sell your kit, transfer service, or just move with it (Elon has said you’ll eventually be able to use it on an RV). But you took that logical end result and set your own expectations based on assumptions that were not aligned with reality.

You are not in the target market, of course you’re going to be frustrated.

Which is why when social policies are adopted, they must be implemented as a minimum, not a maximum.

You should be allowed to have whatever private health care or sharing, etc you want, while having some basic amount of care commonly available. There will always be limits. Rich people can afford to hire their own private doctor and nurses. We can't realistically afford that for every individual.

And we have already identified these things really. From preventative care and reproductive health options which can be found free of charge, to things like EMTALA granting emergency care to everyone.

Identify the things which are fundamental and provide those to everyone, and allow the upper echelons and unique needs to operate in free market.

Is it just this specific situation that causes you to feel that way? Or should all diseases which have some amount of preventative protocol be treated the same, perhaps STDs?

And what about other choices that impact emergency care? Obesity related illness and injuries, smoking and other cancer-inducing habits, dangerous activities such as motor sports and rock climbing, workplace injuries without appropriate PPE, auto accidents without helmets and seat belts, etc.

And who is it that gets to be the moral arbiter of what is acceptable? To me, it seems like whoever is in power. What happens when “the other side” from your perspective wins an election cycle?

While historically quite useful, I swapped to Photopea.com and haven’t looked back. It continues to amaze me how well it works and how broad its feature set is.

I don't know much about codecs, but I just did a screen recording and checked it out with VLC: H264 - MPEG-4 AVC (part 10) (avc1)

So what’s stopping them from doing that now?

Or they could be allowed to show whatever but are required to allow users to opt-in/out.

The replies here seem to be ignoring the point I was making, so I guess I was unclear. I'm going to try once more, hopefully this helps:

The effects of the virus at play are irrelevant... long term, short term, sniffles, death. None of that matters to the topic of moral obligation. Only contagion matters, so let's take two opposing mechanistic scenarios:

1 - Reduced infectiousness (what we expect)

Person A getting the vaccine reduces the chance they will spread it to Person B if exposed and/or infected.

2 - Reduced symptoms (counterintuitive)

Person A getting the vaccine still gets infected and can infect Person B, but no longer has symptoms such as fever. In this situation, Person A actually becomes problematic to the un-vaccinated Person B, since it's not obvious to either individual that Person A is infectious.

In the first scenario, your vaccination potentially helps others. In the second, your vaccination potentially hurts others. The mechanism of action can change altruism into unintended harm. This is why the mechanism of vaccination is so important from social perspective.

> Vaccination is a moral obligation

Only if the mechanism of its action contributes to herd immunity. If it provides symptom abatement without lowering infection and transmission, then vaccination of those not at risk can prove counterproductive due to asymptomatic spread.

We are seeing more competition over time in social media, which is a good thing in my opinion. But fragmentation of messaging options seems far less beneficial.

I am not yet feeling compelled to pay for Matrix server benefits, but if I was able to pay for some solution like this where I got some trusted managed bridges, I'd be all on board. However I'm not sure what that trust model would look like.