SirEDCaLot @ SirEDCaLot @lemmy.today

Posts

0

Comments

545

Joined

2 yr. ago

That was for Beeper Mini which was an attempt at imessage on android.
I don't think the new version runs the homeserver on the phone; with the new version you can still participate in federated chats and use the desktop client so I don't think it majorly changed in that way.

Other countries have less gun crime sure. They also have a functional health care system, including mental health care. They have culture that doesn't glorify violence and better emphasizes connections with fellow humans and collaboration rather than confrontation.
Behavior like bullying that in the US often elicits a 'boys will be boys, let them work it out' reaction would get kids severely disciplined or kicked out of school in most other civilized countries.
Other countries didn't defund their mental health systems in the 1980s, turning a great many violent and mentally ill people out on the streets. I'm not a big Reagan fan generally but that policy did irreparable harm to the US.
And other countries don't treat addicts like criminals, locking them up for years with violent criminals where they themselves become violent. Other countries treat addicts like medical patients.

So yeah other countries do a lot of things better than the US, in terms of cultivating a less violent more inclusive society. You can't just point to gun policy and say THERE THATS THE ANSWER THATS ALL WE NEED.

you say the lions share of murders are committed by drug gangs, but that’s ignoring the majority of gun injuries are self inflicted.

Quite correct. Somewhere between 2/3 and 4/5 depending on the year of gun deaths are suicides. It's why I hate most 'gun violence' numbers because they include suicides to get to a ~30k/year number (homicides are 10-12k/year most years) while the term 'gun violence' strongly suggests crime done to others.

I don't believe we should blame a gun for suicide anymore than we should blame a knife, body of water, tall bridge/building, bottle of pills, etc. Suicide is a (shitty) personal choice someone makes for themselves. And I reject the idea that all of society should be prohibited from owning a tool simply because a suicidal person might use it to end their own life.
Suicide is a tragedy and I'm all for preventing it. But depriving hundreds of millions of law-abiding citizens from having a tool they use safely, daily, for protection and recreation is not the answer. It's not how a 'free' society works or should work.

And while it was written into the constitution it was amended into the constitution, and like the 21st which repealed the 18th, could be amended out again.

Yes it could be. Any part of the Constitution can be changed. Even the 1st Amendment. Should we rewrite the 1st Amendment to ban pornography or politically unpopular speech? Should we rewrite the 4th Amendment to exclude computers and only apply to printed papers?
Just because we CAN muck with the Bill of Rights doesn't mean we SHOULD.

you also say there are 5x defensive Gun owners. This is a made up statistic - there is no formal definition of a defensive gun owner, there is no way to shoot a gun defensively.

I said 'defensive gun USES'. That has a definition- it's when a law-abiding citizen uses a lawfully-owned firearm to stop or prevent a crime. The vast majority of defensive gun uses (90-95%) end with no shots fired- the criminal sees the gun and runs away.
Sorry for a reddit link but click here - that's from /r/CCW (concealed carry weapon) and it's a filter for 'member DGU', IE posts where a redditor is involved in a DGU situation. I'd encourage you to read some of them.

The problem with DGUs is they aren't tracked. Most aren't reported to the police and those that are aren't centrally tracked in any database like the FBI's homicide database. That means coming up with a number is done with statistical analysis of victimization surveys. This of course produces wildly different numbers, which range from 55k-80k/year (anti-gun researcher Hemenway) to ~2 million (pro-gun researcher Lott). Personally I think the number is somewhere around 300-500k (at least that's what NCVS data suggests) but you can draw your own conclusions. Wikipedia has a great article on DGUs.

For the sake of this argument though I go with a low number of 60k-- 12k homicides, 60k DGUs, that's about 5x.

While it may take time - a few generations - maybe even a dozen generations - to disarm the majority of households, it’s possible.

Let's say you do that. Let's say you repeal the 2nd Amendment, and do 'buybacks' (or as gun owners call it, 'confiscation with compensation'), and you keep this up for 20+ years. What have you actually accomplished?

Most likely DGUs would drop to near zero. FIREARM suicides would drop to near-zero, and suicides overall might drop a little (a gun is faster and works at home, a lot of people who take pills or decide to jump off a building change their mind before they're dead and survive). This would have little/no effect on drug gangs who are usually using illegal guns anyway. And without DGUs, criminals would KNOW their victims are ALWAYS unarmed.
Spree shootings would probably become less frequent. But under 100 people per year die in such incidents anyway, despite the big headlines (you're literally more likely to get struck by lightning than die in a spree shooting in the USA).

I therefore look at that and say even if you stop a few spree shootings, you don't do much for gang violence, you empower criminals, and you get rid of the DGUs. I don't see that as being an effective policy.

the majority of gun owners own guns for fun/sport. So while, yes, it is sad to ruin fun, it’s also sad to have children killed.

And if there was a direct zero-sum tradeoff between sport shooting and dead kids you'd have a really good argument. There isn't.

Finally, you don’t have to ban all guns, you could keep say, bolt action rifles and single barrel shotguns - where sports and hunting could still continue. This wouldn’t solve all the problems but it might have saved lives multiplicatively in mass shootings.

Well that also removes pistols for personal defense.
But even if you did, what happens when some enterprising machinist with a basement workshop downloads plans for a gun or to turn a bolt action rifle into a semi-auto?

THIS is why gun bans don't work. They're too easy to make. The only reason criminals don't manufacture or import them in great number is because while they're easy to make, they're easier to steal or straw purchase. Just because a lot of crime guns were once legal guns doesn't mean cutting off the legal guns will make gun crime go away.

Curious for your thoughts/reactions to this?

(This is not an insult, I just had a realization that I think might affect you)-- do you know what the name comes from?

Years ago there was a thing called a beeper before everyone had cell phones. It was a one way paging system-- you'd give your friends your beeper number, they'd call it, type in their phone number, and their number (or whatever they dialed in) would appear on your beeper. You'd then use a landline phone to call them back (early versions of the system had no text or reply capability, only numbers and only one-way).

I always thought it was a cool name. But thinking about it I realize someone less than maybe 25-30 years old might literally have never encountered such a device. Much like a 5.25" floppy disk or rotary dial phone, they went out of style years ago and a young person might never have encountered one.

Curious if that's you?

Yeah Synapse is still largely a first gen system. There will be others.

FWIW beeper is moving towards a client side hosting model where your phone app hosts the bridges. They currently have a local hosted Signal bridge which runs on the phone...

I think the issue isn't nudity but sexualization-- IE nude scene in context of a film is fine, chopping the nude scene out of the film is basically turning the actress into a porn star and that's not fine. Same attitude is why the actress called it molestation. Different attitude as a society I guess.

Surprised nobody here is talking about Matrix. Open source, client side / end to end encrypted, chat history stored (encrypted) on the server so it syncs to every device, supports federation, and supports bridges so you can use Matrix to access your other accounts like Signal, WhatsApp, etc and have everything in one place.

https://Beeper.com is based on Matrix and worth a look. But you can also self-host everything.

This is also why I am thankful for the American first amendment.
It would appear that in that user's country, it is considered additionally a crime to take the nude scene out of context.
I think a lot of people online take freedom of speech for granted, not realizing that many supposedly civilized countries have an increasing number of restrictions on unpopular speech, critical speech, or otherwise undesirable speech like this.

Simplistic logic that sounds nice but doesn't actually work. There are more guns than people in this country. We have significantly bigger problems with illegal drug cartels than most. Drug gangs, who have access to illicit import capability, commit the lion's share of gun violence. The right to keep in their arms is literally written into our Constitution.
Put those things together and you have a few very big problems.

The first is that any sort of gun ban will basically fail unless you amend the Constitution, which there is not political will to do by any means. And those who want to keep their gun rights will point out that there are at 4-5x as many defensive gun uses by law abiding gun owners as there are gun homicides. So it is unlikely that you will be able to get any sort of gun ban to happen.

Second, even if you did, you could never get rid of any significant number of them. There is no national registration scheme. A couple of states have their own registration schemes but those are generally not the states with the majority of firearms. Look at other countries that had similar situations like Australia, they have had numerous amnesty periods for people to turn in firearms and they still don't think they have a significant majority of them collected.

Finally the question is who you are disarming? Remember, the lions share of gun murders are committed by drug gangs. A gang that can import illegal drugs can just as easily import illegal guns. Or, guns are actually not that hard to make, significantly easier than drugs. Any decently equipped machine shop can crank out guns, and unlike a drug lab which has to be out of the country the machine shop has a legitimate day shift use so it can operate in the open and pay taxes.
Point is, you will end up disarming the law abiding citizens while the criminals will still be armed, and willing to sell those guns to other criminals.

I also very much want to end school shootings. I hate that we are turning schools into fortresses or prisons. I hate the teachers, who are already paid shit, have to think things like 'time to attack a gunman with scissors'.

But I want to spend effort and money on the policy that will most likely bring that goal about. Maximum bang for buck if you will. And I'm sorry but gun control isn't it.

What's wrong with Beeper?

This is really not accurate. Matrix is not designed to be a super privacy first protocol. It's like Lemmy in the it's designed to solve a problem and be a useful federated collaboration tool. It borrows features from a number of popular messaging platforms. Message history is stored on the server but encrypted client side so privacy is preserved. It supports group chat rooms. It supports voice and video. And most importantly, it supports bridges- you can connect your matrix to other services that are completely incompatible with matrix using a bridge. Perhaps the best example of this is Beeper, which is built on matrix. They are trying to replicate the user experience of the old app Trillian- beeper can link with a number of chat services including Google messages, slack, WhatsApp, telegram, signal, etc. Thus you get all your chats in one place.

Oh yes for sure. Wasn't saying otherwise. Was only pointing out the details because the way the program worked previously, it was kind of an all or nothing thing. And thus, Aqara joining could be taken as a sign that they are going to make everything completely open and interoperable and work perfectly directly with HA. I don't think that's the case.

This is still a very important step. Open standards may be the most important part of home automation, but the second most important part might well be respect. Go back just a year or two and HA and open source in general were basically ignored in the market. Now things are changing.
Every company that partners with HA further cements HA and open standards in general as a legitimate / major player in the automation market that manufacturers ignore at their own peril. The more that happens, the more products will be developed with open standards in mind.

It's very important to note that this is not the entire brand joining, this is three specific products which already use Matter over Thread and thus would be interoperable anyway.

Not matrix? XMPP is a good idea, but the wildly different levels of support among clients cause problems even back in its heyday Matrix solves some of that, fully encrypted, chat history stored on the server in encrypted form, supports gateways to other services.

A text editor that doesn't need a tutor because the interface is intuitive enough that someone who has been using text editors (as a concept) for years can more or less instantly pick it up and start working without needing a tutorial to simply edit a config file.

To expand on this- In general you must comply with the laws of any jurisdiction where you have a business presence. This for example Meta is a USA company, but they have offices in the EU and they sell advertising in the EU from EU offices so they have to comply with EU laws for EU users. They can't just wave off and say 'we are a USA company, EU regs don't apply to us'.

Lemmy is not a corporation. There is no business presence in Texas, unless an instance admin lives there or hosts the server there. So Lemmy, both as a whole and as individual instances, can simply give Texas the middle finger and say 'we aren't subject to your laws as we have no presence or business in your state. We are in the state of California (or whatever) and are subject to the laws of our home state. It is not our job to enforce Texas laws in California on servers hosted in Virginia.'

Thus Texas trying to enforce their laws on a Cali company is like Hollywood studios sending DMCA notices to Finland.

Yes exactly. This is a big part of why some repressive countries are starting to require identity registration in order to participate in social media. Arresting people is unnecessary if you can simply stamp out non-preferred speech at the point of discussion.

All the crypto in the world won't help if you do stupid stuff and have crap OPSEC.

A big part of that is stay under the radar. If I were NSA I'd be running a great many TOR nodes (both relay nodes and exit nodes) in the hope of generating some correlations. Remember, you don't need to prove in order to raise suspicion.

So for example if you have an exit node so you can see the request is CSAM related, and you run a bunch of intermediate nodes and your exit nodes will prefer routing traffic through your intermediate nodes (which also prefer routing traffic through your other intermediate nodes), you can guess that wherever the traffic goes after one or two relay hops through your nodes is whoever requested it.
If you find a specific IP address frequently relaying CSAM traffic to the public Internet, that doesn't actually prove anything but it does give you a suspicion 'maybe the guy who owns that address likes kiddy porn, we should look into him'.

Doing CSAM with AI tools on the public Internet is pretty stupid. Storing his stash on cell phones was even more stupid. Sharing any of it with anyone was monumentally stupid. All the hard crypto in the world won't protect you if you do stupid stuff.

So speaking to OP- First, I'd encourage you to consider moving to a country that has better free speech protections. Or advocate for change in your own country. It's not always easy though, because sadly it's the unpopular speech that needs protecting; if you don't protect the unpopular stuff you jump down a very slippery slope. We figured that out in the USA but we seem to be forgetting it lately (always in the name of 'protecting kids' of course).

That said, OP you should decide what exactly you want to accomplish. Chances are your nation's shitty law is aimed at public participation type websites / social media. If it's important for you to participate in those websites, you need to sort of pull an Ender's Game type strategy (from the beginning of the book)- create an online-only persona, totally separate from your public identity. Only use it from devices you know are secure (and are protected with a lot of crypto). Only connect via TOR or similar privacy techniques (although for merely unpopular political speech, a VPN from a different country should suffice). NEVER use or allude to your real identity from the online persona. Create details about your persona that are different from your own- what city you're in, what your age and gender are, what your background is, etc. NEVER use any of your real contact info or identity info.

Taxes are not displayed anywhere else, so if Airbnb starts including taxes in their listing they will be at a competitive disadvantage as their pricing would become apples to oranges versus hotels in the wrong direction.

Almost nowhere in the US includes taxes in the advertised price.