pitninja @ stu @lemmy.pit.ninja

Well I didn't want to have a bio, but Lemmy doesn't let me null it out, so

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

152

Joined

1 yr. ago

Afaik, that isn't in effect yet, but will become a major factor next year.

would have to really scramble to stay in the red in the future

Did you mean stay in the black?

Somebody read Little House on the Prairie once and said, "I can do that!" I'm joking, but only slightly.

What do you mean by nefarious exactly? I don't get the impression that it's evil...

As long as they don't try to mandate that tech companies provide encryption backdoors, have at it.

Here's the video of it if anybody hasn't seen it yet.

There are 2 burdens of proof in trials, 1 for civil trials, and 1 for criminal trials. Civil trials require a burden of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" and it is much lower than the burden of proof required for criminal trials, which is "beyond a shadow of a doubt". The burden of proof you are describing for Kevin Spacey's criminal trial is actually "beyond a shadow of a doubt", which essentially requires reliable eyewitnesses or a smoking gun, as they say.

That said, Spacey also defeated a civil trial in the US last October for a different set of accusations, so there is that 🤷

I can't claim to know the truth in he said/he said situations like these, but common sense would indicate that there's probably some truth to multiple accusations of impropriety. Victims often don't opt to speak out publicly and go to court unless they think they can win and scam artists are rare.

I don't think I've used a coin flip to decide anything in my life since my parents occasionally used one to decide something between my brother and I as kids (such as who would get first turn on something). Every time I thought to do a coin flip for decision making as a younger person, I'd find myself leaning toward and secretly hoping for one outcome and think to myself...this is dumb, let's just do the one I'm already leaning toward. Now it's not even something I consider doing when making decisions. I also go literally months, sometimes years, between touching coins now, so I'd have to ask Google to flip a coin for me or something.

Wu-Tang is for the children, after all...

It's actually pretty sad that there are probably going to be some braindead Hollywood execs who completely missed the point of the movie and unironically pitch something like this.

Yeah, serial killers have to be disarming enough to pursue victims while not giving off too many social signals that they're responsible for killing multiple people.

I probably could've worded that statement better and you bring up good points when it comes to individuals. Innovation clearly does not require profit motive to occur. The type of innovation you're talking about does require time to achieve, however. For individuals, this is leisure time, for organizations this is billable time. Regardless of the structure of an economy, the creative pursuits you've described can't occur if people are being worked to death.

One thing I will say about open source software, though, is that a lot of projects don't exist because of pure altruism. A lot of projects have been corporate funded (sometimes significantly funded) in order to specifically kill closed source competitors. I'm a pragmatist, though, I see open source software as a universal good for humanity regardless of its raison d'etre. Open source software is a form of competition that pushes closed source software vendors to innovate in order to justify their value. I could also argue that a lot of free content on the Internet is only free in the sense that it was produced by people who didn't have a profit motive and it's still often subscription or ad supported. YouTube, for example, still makes a lot of money on it.

The main point I was driving at is the choice of economic system doesn't matter much for personal creative endeavors as long as it allows people time to pursue them. But market competition for profits is absolutely one of the most powerful motivators for product and service innovation for corporations. So if you adopt an economic system that essentially eliminates competition and profits, you kill that motivation to innovate.

One problem I have with it is that topics can trend and spread so quickly that they get in front of facts and it can easily become a vehicle for misinformation and witch hunts. I think I've decided I'd rather get information a little later from fact checking sources than consume and potentially contribute to spreading false information. It just seems like it's the perfect vehicle for toxic behavior even if it has legitimate benefits when used correctly.

Yeah, any economic system that concentrates power into one group is bad, whether it's corporate monopolies or a single government (which ends up kind of like the ultimate monopoly in a communist state). Communists IMHO have a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature and how incentives can be exploited for the benefit of everyone. We need a form of capitalism that promotes competition (because profit is possibly the most powerful motivator of innovation), but also keeps companies in check with strong regulations, strong workers unions, and profits taxed appropriately. It's also important to recognize that some basic needs should be met by the government like public education, public utilities, correctional systems, national defense, welfare, healthcare, etc. But even with public services, there should be room for private companies to innovate and provide premium alternatives to keep the government in check (with exceptions obviously, we don't want private military and private prisons for example).

They could call it Lock Jaws 🤣

For what it's worth, I just looked up the lyrics instead of listening because I hate country music and didn't want to waste my time, but I understand those who just listened instead. To add to what you said, there's also the obvious difference in friction involved with going to the store and buying beer vs tapping a link on your phone.

As long as they didn't staple the wire or something.

E2EE only exists up to the bridge, not the whole way to your client

I just want to clarify that most bridges can be set up to have E2EE between the Matrix client and the bridge (regardless of whether the bridge supports encrypted chats on the bridged service because not all do, e.g. Facebook), but it is true that the bridge itself has to decrypt and translate between Matrix and the 3rd party chat service, so as you mentioned trusting who hosts bridges or doing it yourself is really important.

This seems like the kind of thing where the justice department could be exerting pressure and building a federal case. I'd be interested to see what kinds of emails are flying around behind the scenes.

It is a server config option. Lemmy.ml uses a banned word list, while other instances don't. The words are still there and visible from instances that don't censor.