stonedemoman @ stonedemoman @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

172

Joined

2 yr. ago

I find this both humourous and troubling D:

Brother, we're on the same team. There's a Debian distro on nearly all of my computers. I was just trying to add a bit of nuance to the conversation and bridge the divide. We don't have to be enemies.

Edit: I've been had. Bamboozled, even.

That's very true! I would've loved this option in my formative years back before developing all the bad habits lol

I must forget everything I know about computing. 🥋

I feel like I'm going to get flak for taking a position that's not completely anti-Windows, but please try to hear me out before casting judgment. I use both OS and think they both have merit. Linux- for the reasons listed in the meme, and windows- for those without the technical know-how, patience, or time for the better alternative.

That being said, if anyone thinks like how this Ed, Edd, N' Eddy looking mofo in the meme does I'll be the first to say that's a horribly bad take lol

Of course it is. There's 0 reason to come after anyone for choosing Linux as any, if at all, of the extra effort incurred is only going to affect them personally.

Edit: Not even a single flak in the comments, the happiest I've ever been to stand corrected. We've done it, world peace achieved.

I guess I disagree that an office, or someone’s home office is considered a public space.

(15) Public official

The term "public official" means any elected official, appointed official, or employee of- (A) a Federal, State, or local unit of government in the United States other than- (i) a college or university; (ii) a government-sponsored enterprise (as defined in section 622(8) of this title);

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title:2%20section:1602%20edition:prelim

I'm not intending this as a 'gotchya', I'm arguing that these are public servants that handle matters of public interest. The location is not important to me, and other than this fringe 'remote' case we're talking about public, tax-funded buildings.

State employees aren’t actively gunning people down in the streets, unless they are cops. I think it’s a very big difference. I think you need the accountability that a body cam provides on someone who can literally end lives in seconds.

And I believe that you need accountability for people that can withhold records that could potentially save you from a life of false imprisonment. To me this is not a significant enough of a difference for me to feel the need to justify it.

I’m not sure violating privacy rights is the way to go about restoring civil rights.

violating the privacy rights of office workers

This is where our disagreement won't be reconciled. There is no expectation of privacy in public. Until the Supreme Court overturns their decision this is not the public's problem.

Body cams are because police have authority and are interacting with the public.

State employees at any level have authority to abuse, it's just a very large range.

For example, there have been known cases of county clerk employees refusing to file FOIA requests on completely fabricated precedent. If I'm being charged with something, there should not be any barrier between me and the public records that exonerate me.

This example is just the tip of the iceberg.

Edit: Also just because I failed to bring this up, I wanna add something about this:

Office workers working on information that is often likely PII, thus violating the privacy right of citizens too,

When you FOIA request records, they're always going to have a chance to censor private information. This comes up all the time with license plates and address on IDs in bodycam footage. It's the same thing.

I get the concern, believe me. If it weren't absolutely necessary (IMO) I wouldn't be suggesting it.

But doesn't it feel ethically wrong that people are having their civil rights violated by corrupt city officials and their cohorts?

Think about what a difference body cams made for police conduct. It's more difficult to abuse any power you hold when you can be held accountable for it

Alrighty there bud. You have yourself a terrific day. Try not to forget to breathe. 😁

Just so we're clear BTW:

The law does not require retail or food service companies that make food to order to give ingredient lists or allergy warnings to customers. That means any restaurant, cafe or food cart that makes food to order does not need to give you the ingredients list

Source: Any.

Past, present, or future- it doesn't matter. People need to eat. Suggesting that people just don't go to restaurants is as helpful as suggesting people just don't go to grocery stores. That's why this fact:

restaurants hardly ever list their recipe as it is proprietary.

is doing a great job of convincing me that it is actually impossible, and if I'm honest you've said nothing to convince me otherwise. I think that's the disconnect.

I'm not going to stop going to restaurants. Don't get me wrong, I hate Nestle as much as the next lemming, but restaurants are not something I'm ever going to be able to cut out of my life completely. And I'm willing to bet my life on this being true for a lot of people.

0/3

Positing a claim =! positing a source. That's 0/2.

No we mean the office workers too, if they're public servants. There's an epidemic going on in the US right now of city employees withholding forms and public resources in favor of helping the police cover up their misconduct.

Uncomfortable as though it may be, it's necessary for accountability.

Did you know profitability =! Net income?

It's pretty easy to just edit a comment to better reflect what you actually meant, you know?

A supporter of misinformation. I see. Not a good look.

Two brand new accounts with no previous activity upvoting him/downvoting me and he wants to pretend he hasn't been alt voting me this entire time lmao

I genuinely meet a good number of pricks, but I don't meet a lot of genuine pricks.

Was that supposed to be a coherent response? Everyone eats out. I think you would have to scour a nation pretty thoroughly to find even a single person that hasn't at least had a McDonald's shake or something. Whether something is mandated or not was not the conversation. The conversation was whether or not it's possible to actively avoid completely, and restaurants hardly ever list their recipe as it is proprietary.

Are you legally mandated to go shop at the grocery store? No? Then why would you posit that response? You're going to need more to support your claim than what you've said here before you can justify dismissing people.

Other people have kind of touched on this already, but clients prioritize connections based on stability and speed so things like seedboxes often get utilized more than your average home client to saturate a downloading connection.

I also noticed that my max upload speed is much less (e.g. 2MB/s) than what I get with speedtest (e.g. 7MB/s)

Again, other people have touched on some bottlenecks that can cause this (y'all are good lol), but clients also have a bit of connection overhead that will ultimately affect your maximum upload speed to peers at a varying degree. Here's some details, if it helps:

Overhead- Additional data used and required for communication and coordination between sender and receiver that is not part of the payload data actually being transferred.

You'd think it would occur to them that if one is able to consult a list, that makes it possible to avoid Nestlé products

I think you're forgetting something. This entire chain started with an example to support the theory of it being impossible. The one about eating out where you don't know the ingredients being served to you or what brand they're from. You chose to ad hom without even addressing it. 🤷

I've read the comment chain, it just seemed like you were implying that this ban would achieve some kind of beneficial outcome.

It's fine if I'm wrong, that's okay. I'll take that loss. That's not my point. I just think this ban has no positive effects whatsoever and I'm just hoping people realize that if true.

My quote:

streamers are currently being forced to reckon with their profitability — or lack thereof.

profitability

Your misinformed quote:

You specifically chose to quote a sentence about profit

profit

There's a very important difference there that I think you're not built to understand.