After your and the other commenter's post I had to go check, I didn't know she was in Scientology.
Wow, that makes it even worse.
Personally it is just her facial expression range (that is, a very narrow one), that irrationally makes her unlikable to me. I thought it was a good character representation in the first season of Handmaid's tale, but then once I realized that it's how she plays every character, or in every situation...
Gal gadot and Elisabeth Moss for me.
Also not a fan of Jason Momoa/Chris Hemsworth type of guys. Anything with them in the lead and I generally nope out. It has to do with the plain, flat, repetitive characters and lack of depth, not the physique (for example I respect dave Bautista evolution).
Well, your argument at the moment seems to be purely based on your opinion on on the fact that someone people do use the term in a derogatory sense, but this absolutely doesn't translate to "it is generally used" as such.
The argument of the other person seems to be grounded on the empirically easily verifiable point that you can find plenty of non derogatory uses of the word in mainstream media, which is a solid argument against the word being "generally used" in a derogatory way.
In fact, I believe your argument really is "incels and others in the manosphere use this word as a derogatory term, and using this word can associate the user with them, hence I don't use it and I don't recommend to use it". Which is a perfectly fine position, which I personally disagree with, but that doesn't rely on a distortion of reality and is a consequence of a personal political choice (that I respect fully).
Yes, the whole discussion is around antitrust, and he thinks republicans have a chance to do better than democrats there. There is nothing to "bro" about, it's pretty clear from the context.
If he said any of that before the election, I could vaguely read an endorsement for single-issue voters. Saying republicans are better than democrats in fighting antitrust after Democrats shat their pants about it, doesn't sound an endorsement to me.
The rest of this comment is out of topic. His focus (and his company focus) has always been on a specific political area. So there is no expectation that he would address the whole political scenario, when he was talking about that narrow area.
But he went out of his way to demonize the democratic party and somehow hold the Republicans up as the defenders of small business
So this is what bothers you? A completely legitimate critique of the democratic party?
Well, I personally cannot care less, but you do you.
I see the issue as very simple:
Him and his company work in the privacy space. Tech monopolies are a problem because captured people. Improving in this space is a win for privacy. Which is not something that is beneficial "in a vacuum", it's beneficial to all those vulnerable people that will be attacked by this government, or the next. he expressed optimism about the fact that republicans can do better than democrats here. Period. Naive, wrong, whatever. A legitimate opinion based on his reading of the last few years' trend.
No endorsement, no "pledge loyalty", nothing. Just a consideration. He also mentioned on his reddit account that ultimately actions will be what will count (as it is obvious).
So to me this is legitimately a nothing burger. I cannot care less that people in US (and in many more places) live politics like a football game. I cannot care less that you or others got hurt because he criticized Democrats. They could and should do better, and then if the critique is unfair I will be there saying that he "goes out of his way" to criticize them. So far he clearly motivated his opinion with what Schumer did.
There are less than 10 companies that control almost the entire tech space. What "fewer choices"...?
Breaking up google would be already enough, which is what the focus was.
All your comment sounds very fuzzy to me. Basically the whole antitrust thing is on google, if republicans break it up, great. Which " allies" are they going to bolster?
Republicans tech policy is motivated entirely by the fact that their racist and conspiratorial views were getting them banned on social media sites from 2015 - 2024
And i should care because...? Why should I care why republicans wanted to break up tech monopolies, if breaking monopolies is anyway something that I consider a positive change?
Breaking monopolies give people more choice. More choice (free) leads to hopefully people choosing more privacy conscious tools. More privacy means less data that can be handed over to doge, less data that ICE has to target minorities, etc.
then you either whole-heartedly agree that a group of criminals and wannabe dictators should be able to destroy any business that publishes speech against them, or you are extremely gullible.
Those are not the only 2 options.
I am instead very happy that they will do the right thing for the wrong reason, and outside those monopolies more people will choose services that republicans have no power over.
Moreover, your whole argument assumes someone is in US. I am sympathetic to the people in US, but tech monopolies are a global problem.
The fact that you inflate the meaning of that tweet to make it more meaningful than it is, doesn't mean he did anything of the sort.
The tweet happened after the election but before the government, and it was an endorsement of the antitrust appointee. He also expressed his opinion that republicans were more likely than democrats to fight big tech monopolies in the antitrust space. This is far from an endorsement.
It was also a completely unnecessary comment, in response to nothing.
It was in response to Trump's tweet about the antitrust appointee. I would say quite relevant context for a tweet about the antitrust appointee.
It was unnecessary, true. Like every tweet. He expressed his unnecessary opinion, the same way we are doing now.
Wow, those are big networks.
Obviously I suppose in case of AWS it doesn't matter as no human visitor (except maybe some VPN connection?) will visit from there.
As someone who bans /32 IPs only, is the main advantage resource consumption?
If they do, they are really bad at it. They are basically a close community and they got isolated even in a tiny community like (the wider) Lemmy.
I do remember a fun anecdote where a post was shared from a propaganda website, one of those that would appear here.
The article was clearly faked, the alleged "Ukrainian Nazi profile" on Instagram didn't exist, the same news couldn't be found in Russian (only in English) and the text was the same across 3-4 random websites.
They were discussing it seriously of course, but between them, which again, to me suggest more an echo chamber rather than a deliberate effort to push propaganda.
Either way, I did block generously :)
Edit: it was easy to find from my modlog, since I was banned for "Nazi apologia" of course. https://lemm.ee/post/37342752
Yeah, their cult's position on Ukraine is simply atrocious. They cannot deal with the fact that Russia is an imperialistic nation and since Ukraine is supported by US (if we can say that) this makes it easy for them.
This is why if you discuss that in Ukraine 15k civilians died since 2022 only they will tell you that they are all Nazis, or that it's Ukraine fault, because they use them as shields (same claim Israel does, but guess where they stand on that), or something like this.
This attitude is then completely reinforced by being in a echo chamber with extreme peer pressure and silly moderation, so one's opinion keeps being constantly entrenched.
As a communist myself, my diagnosis is that that population is mostly 20-something westerners who grew up in the political vacuum post-1991 and adopted uncritically views of the cold war. Most of them probably feel an inherent guilt by living in countries where they benefit from everything they swear against, and the online cosplay as a revolutionary is their way to cope and self-identify as a person living by their own morals.
There are enough links in this thread already showing that this is literally nazi propaganda
Maybe you should practice a big dose of humility, considering that one comment up you were making stuff up about what words mean, and now you are misinterpreting a single quote about a single opinion about the holodomor that focuses purely on whether it was intentional or not.
Calling it "Nazi propaganda" is just complete nonsense.
To reiterate, "enough links in this thread" refers to one out of 16 views listed in a Wikipedia page, which for sure is not an exhaustive list of all scholars' views. Nowhere is to be found that holodomor is "basically Nazi propaganda" and the fact you think anybody questioning your uninformed opinion is a Nazi apologist is just a mental shortcut you are taking to protect your views from any level of scrutiny.
Maybe deal with the fact that you simply are not equipped to discuss this topic.
The intentionality of Holodomor is debated, but calling an event that killed millions of people and scarred generations "imaginary genocide" or "Nazi propaganda" like the other commenter did is deranged.
The quote you posted is far from final. I won't pretend to have the answer, but you presented one opinion as if it's a mainstream and accepted view, when it's not. Just Wikipedia shows multiple views, and I am sure that academic literature would present even more.
So let's be realistic and admit that if academic consensus can't be reached by historians by now, you don't have the truth in your pocket as nobody else does, and we won't figure it out in a Lemmy conversation.
I presume you mean running Plex in host namespace. I don't do that as I run the synology package, but I can totally see the issue you mean.
Running in host namespace is bad, not terrible, especially because my NAS in on a separate VLAN, so besides being able to reach other NAS local services, cannot do do much. Much much much less risk than exposing the service on the internet (which I also don't).
Also, this all is not a problem for me, I don't use remote streaming at all, hence why I am also experimenting with jellyfin. If I were though, I would have only 2 options: expose jellyfin on the internet, maybe with some hacky IP whitelist, or expect my mom to understand VPNs for her TV.
(which doesn't harden security as much as you think)
Would be nice to elaborate this.
I think it reduces a lot of risk, compared to exposing the service publicly. Any vulnerability of the software can't be directly exploited because the Plex server is not reachable, you need an intermediate point of compromise. Maybe Plex infra can be exploited, but that's a massively different type of attack compared to the opportunities and no-cost "run shodab to check exposed Plex instances" attack.
After your and the other commenter's post I had to go check, I didn't know she was in Scientology. Wow, that makes it even worse. Personally it is just her facial expression range (that is, a very narrow one), that irrationally makes her unlikable to me. I thought it was a good character representation in the first season of Handmaid's tale, but then once I realized that it's how she plays every character, or in every situation...