pulsewidth @ pulsewidth @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

421

Joined

6 mo. ago

Discord is just another social media site that has a whole lot of people fooled into thinking it's not creating profiles on them for advertising. Gonna get real obvious real soon though.

I guess thats OK for community dev teams and stuff - like it works well, users can come and accesa the faq or support and leave. But it can leave a walled garden of data in there if they want to move elsewhere later though.

Larger issue is the people that share their whole lives there as a quasi-Facebook. That's all getting hoovered up and sold to the highest bidder - alongside data like exactly what activity you do on your PC (processes running when and where for how long etc - Discord monitors a lot)

Better though because you don't need an account, and can gain a lot of anonymity via an eggdrop or vpshell etc.

Coupled with other recent actions by the White House and DHS I'd say it's very reasonable to file this under stochastic terrorism. They know the likely violent outcome, they are hoping for that outcome, but they're doing it under a guise of "just sharing information" with "a concerned public" whom are "under attack".

It gets thrown around a lot but Orwell's 1984 has a passage, the context in the book is the protanonist realizing specifically about how it is impossible to argue against the fascist party as they happily substitute alternate facts whenever desired, and mandate the loyal adopt them wholesale.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."

This is the chapter. https://george-orwell.org/1984/6.html

I mean the section you list 'reception' lists some vagueries about how it's been recieved (positively and negatively) in various countries but it's certainly not shouting out that it's unreliable.

Likewise the controversies section below has three relatively minor events over its entire history.

Hardly seems like a smoking gun..

OP specifically used cop unlocking your phone as an example. Don't argue in bad faith.

Absolutely no access control on a consumer device is impervious to guns and torture.

TL;DR: The end product is the same, whether it be natural or artificial. The real concern, is if the product should really be consumed at all.

This is hot crap. They are different chemicals, the end product is not the same and you're spouting misinformation.

Most of the artificial dyes that people have banned in countries other than the USA are derived from petrochemicals. Natural dyes have been in use far longer and have been shown to have fewer negative health outcomes.

Eg. Red dye containing bugs (cochineal, E120) has no known health effects except to an extremely small percentage of the population whom are allergic to bugs, hence it is marked as an ingredient when used, to alert those with allergies. Its replacement alternatives are:

• red dye #2 (amaranth, E123) which was made from coal tar, and is now made from petroleum byproducts. It is a suspected carcinogen and is banned in most of the world including the US.
• red dye #3 (erythrosine, E127) was first extracted from coal tar and is derived from phenol, currently extracted from petroleum byproducts and it is a known carcinogen and restricted heavily in what it can be used in since the early 1990s in every developed nation except the USA, until this very announcement by the FDA and RFK jr which will bring the USA in line with the rest of the world's protections. California also separately banned it in October 2023.
• red dye 40 (Allura red) is an entirely synthetic dye invented by a chemical corporation in 1971 by azo coupling between diazotized 5-amino-4-methoxy-2-toluenesulfonic acid and 6-hydroxy-2-naphthalene sulfonic acid. I don't know what that means in order to determine if its feedstocks are petrochemicals, but mice studies showed bowel disorders and DNA damage which caused several countries to ban it over the years, however it's currently believed to be safe if the maximum daily limit is adhered to.

And that's just red dye.

How?

Change takes time and they've been anti-gay for a very, very long time. No sane person thinks a single pope solved all the centuries of repression in 10 years.

What I do know is that the conservative Catholics I personally know thought Pope Francis was "too liberal" and "just saying woke things because that's what young people like nowadays" and those are both endorsements to my ears.

Especially his attitude on climate change and income inequality and tax avoidance by the wealthy - there is a lot of that in conservative church groups and if their God's PR representative is telling them to cut that shit out and look after the environment better then great.

This meme just needs a few arrows and ten more text labels and then it'll really get its point across.

Definitely the 'least bad' pope of my lifetime. Let's hope the next one continues the progressive stance he adopted on many aspects of life.

There are quite a few edited 'Friends without the laugh track' videos on YouTube showing how creepy and unfunny some of the characters are. Its a bit of a meme theres so many of them.

Yeah. Lost was when I was intrugued by J J abrams style, and then completely turned off by his inability to tell a story or have a plan beyond the halfway point.

And then they involved him in seemingly every major movie franchise ever for the next two decades.. and he kept doing the same crap. Lots of flash and dazzle and dramatic moments that ultimately mean nothing because the characters have no story to tell, no real arc, no consistent rules creating a believable universe for the watcher to be sucked in to - any rules can be thrown out the window anytime a dramatic cliche opportunity arises. Yet he still seems very popular.

The USA is alone in the entire world in that it has a mass shooting almost every day of every year, and yet when faced with modest controla you're like, "if I, a citizen with no gun dealer licensr can't just sell whatever guns whenever I like to neighbours and friends then any changes are unacceptable".

You say pro gun-control candidates will cost the Democrats votes, well I think I just found a single issue voter.

I feel this is a bad analogy, Wikipedia and IA are not a hard drive spinning in a server rack, they are community projects - made for the public good. They do not face the same issues. The problems they repeatedly face are always the same - funding (which is largely solved) and the issue discussed on topic - legal.

The reason it's important to defend the IA/Wikipedia and pile our resources behind them instead of splitting off new projects is that if they lose legal cases, any other projects with the same or similar goals will face exactly the same attacks and results. Unless you intend to host your replacement on the moon.

I think that if we work together as people we can achieve more than just a couple of good organizations that can fade.

That is exactly what the Internet Archive and Wikipedia are - a bunch of people who wanted to achieve a shared goal in an open, free, and democratic manner.

As soon as you start building something to replace what they've made you'll quickly realize what they did - it's very big, so it needa layers of governance, and you don't want mismanagement by any one person or handful of small people, so you incorporate it and make a charter of your mandates, policies, procedures for stakeholders to vote for removal of people causing issues, clauses stating the data and corporation are owned by your non-profit entity and may never be for-profit... And pretty soon you have yourself an institution.

This doomer shit is worse than useless - it encourages apathy and inaction.

Why make alternatives when these fantastic organizations already exist? It's not the first time they've come under fire and it definitely won't be the last.

If vandalous cunts like Musk wish for them to go away and will de-fund them to that end, best thing we can do is donate to them and spread the word they need help.

Gun control means: mandatory background checks, waiting periods, bans on previously convicted violent criminals owning guns, potentially magazine limits or limits on fully automatic licenses to specific users (like you may need to demonstrate you have proficiency and be a member of a gun club). None of this goes against "the right to bear arms".

It does not mean nobody can buy guns or that guns are taken away - this is the fearmongering always pushed by the very conservative, very pro-Trump NRA.

Little known fact the 'te' in Techdirt stands for "terrible article titles".