einkorn @ einkorn @feddit.org

Just a corn on the internet.

---

Read more

Posts

3

Comments

450

Joined

1 yr. ago

It IS the point. If Telegram was designed and set up as a pure carrier of encrypted information, no one could/should fault them for how the service is used.

However, this is not the case, and they are able to monitor and control the content that is shared. This means they have a moral and legal responsibility to make sure the service is used in accordance with the law.

I am going to quote myself here:

The issue I see with Telegram is that they retain a certain control over the content on their platform, as they have blocked channels in the past. That's unlike for example Signal, which only acts as a carrier for the encrypted data.

If they have control over what people are able to share via their platform, the relevant laws should apply, imho.

Well, except Telegram isn't a good tool for privacy.

There is no E2EE. Simple encryption is only available for 1:1 chats and disabled by default. Telegram doesn't disclose their encryption methods, so there is no way to verify the (in)effectiveness. Telegram is able to block channels from their end, so there is no privacy from their end either.

I guess I might as well argue with a stone instead of an American about universal moral values but here goes nothing:

Wait, did I just judge a person by their membership of a group they got randomly assigned at birth which says nothing about their character?

Anyways...

The suffering of one person is not justification to inflict the same on others. Secondly why are you refusing to help people through hardship in the first place.

Let me ask you in return: Why are neither deserving of your help?

Hell no, and I don't care if that person is black, white, blue, has an American, French or Iraqi passport.

But you are trying to build a strawman here, because babysitting is not the same as granting people shelter from hardships.

And to loop back to your previous statements regarding the number of crimes committed by immigrants: Am I statistically more likely to get murdered by an immigrant or by a fellow country man? You might have to reconsider your approach towards high/low threat environments in your everyday life.

Good point!

So you want to assign every immigrant a babysitter till they have been evaluated to be no risk?

While we are at it, might just as well give EVERYONE a government sponsored supervisor to be sure, because I've heard even some of those people already here rape, murder or commit other crimes. All in the name of the security of our state. I guess we should form some sort of ministry to supervise this effort. I guess Ministry for State Security might be fitting.

Do you even realize how contemptuous your idea is? I don't know anything about you, but I guess to be sure you won't kill me should you ever visit my city/county/state/planet, I will put you in a cage and point a camera at you.

I hope you keep your idea in mind should you plan to take your next vacation anywhere but your own apartment.

Neither does your response answer my question.

I asked why Zelenskyy SHOULD talk to Trump, not for reasons against it.

I am not sure what you are trying to tell with these numbers except to stir some hatred.

To make any sort of sense from these numbers, you have a) to define what an immigrant is (hint, the BKA definition is very loose) and b) compare them to the overall cases of the listed offenses.

Now hold my beer for a second, English is just my second language, but "built" is past tense for "build", isn't it?

• They build a trailer filled with AI → Present tense, i.e. they are doing it right now
• They built a trailer filled with AI → Past tense, i.e. the trailer is finished.

This doesn't answer my question.

In the current situation, Trump has no influence on decision-making in regard to Ukraine. Until he is possibly elected president, he is just an unnecessary security risk.

Why should he talk with Trump? He is an ordinary civilian.

A couple of years back, a graph made its way around the internet showing how much capital cities contributed to the GDP of their respective country. Berlin was the only capital with a negative impact.

AFAIK this has changed since then, but still ...

The issue I see with Telegram is that they retain a certain control over the content on their platform, as they have blocked channels in the past. That's unlike for example Signal, which only acts as a carrier for the encrypted data.

If they have control over what people are able to share via their platform, the relevant laws should apply, imho.

Wikipedia

TL;DR: A permissive license allows doing almost everything, including turning the code into proprietary products.

And who owned Taiwan before that? Because by your logic THEY should be the current owners as well.

The amount of security flaws in the systems forming our cellular networks is staggering.

UKR may not have the luxury of triaging a bunch of people into non combat roles

I don't think it's a luxury but a necessity. A soldier having an utter mental breakdown may become a thread to his own comrades. Of course, there is a difference between people being unable and people being unwilling to fight.

I don’t think anyone really knows how they’re going to react in that situation until they’re in it

It's one of those rare, unknowable situations. One of my colleagues at university was an ex-soldier. He said he's seen hulks of men break down after their first combat situation, and unlikely people taking charge in dangerous situations.

I do not think they should be either and my comment stems not from disdain. But sitting in a trench with the enemy converging on your position is not the place to ponder moral dilemma.

On the other hand I just read on Wikipedia that objection to military service on moral grounds is near impossible in Ukraine. This of course puts these people doubly in a position they should not be chastised for.

I imagne that there is ample room for drafted to be assigned to essential noncombat rolles in and outside the military. So a compromise should be possible: Force people into the war effort but not by handing them a weapon.

I understand people being reluctant to kill others unless absolutely necessary. One reason why I will never work in the defense industry is that here is no way for me to be certain that my work will only ever be used in self-defense.

But in this case? Bucha, attacks on hospitals and abduction of children? What else do these people need to understand what the consequences of not fighting are?

I'd love to see a world where war is a thing of the past, but until then it is necessary and in my opinion even morally required to take up arms and defend those who can not fight.