sudneo @ sudneo @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

311

Joined

2 yr. ago

Many people also fail to make a proper distinction between private and anonymous, which is why some people get mad at the phone number thing.

Definitely docker (well, let's say containers) control the library version, if you didn't build the image specifically not to do that (e.g. fetching dependencies at runtime, which is generally a bad practice and not the default).

However, at build time if you use things like "apt install ..." You will get different versions depending on when you build the image, but once the image is built, you have always the same software inside. Obviously it is very different from nix as they serve very different purposes (one day I will find the motivation to switch to nixOS!).

To be fair, immigration policies have been more or less the same since the early 2000 in Italy. Some different flavour and different shows between Salvini, Meloni and the rest, but Minniti (from PD) was probably even worse (Libyan concentration camps anybody?).

They are not common everywhere in Europe sadly! But they are not just for protection, they are also used instead of thick curtains for darkening the room (my gut feeling tells me that they are more common in the southern European countries).

This is not completely true. Try to look at email from shops (for campaigns etc.), and you will see tons of click-tracking links that go through HTTP. Any of that gets hijacked, and you have an avenue to be phished. DNS integrity is key, and a VPN being a layer 3 control (i.e., at the network level, not the application level) helps preventing some of these attack vectors.

The point is that if you can refuse to communicate with WhatsApp users, they have no more data compared to when your interlocutor simply added your phone to their contact list. They only have more data if you actually carry out conversations, which you are not forced to do.

Well, I am assuming interoperability actually works, if it's only done from one side, it's not really interoperability. As a signal user I would be perfectly fine with an opt-in flag (which Iwouldn't use). But yeah, you are right.

Meta knows that a valid number exists, and at most that your number is a part of that social circle. It doesn't know anything about you just yet. If the association between public number and person is public, your problem is beyond whatsapp, of course. Also, I give you a bad news, but all meta applications request access to contacts. If your contact has your number (to contact you), meta already has your number, possibly very conveniently associated with your name, as this is out of your control.

I think interoperability is a net positive, even privacy wise. Mostly because if we level the playing field and remove the network effect, people who care a little might as well use "better" apps, where "better" stops being "all my friends are there".

The problem you raise is real, but also avoidable. Nobody forces you to actually communicate via signal with people on WhatsApp. In fact, if you do have people on WhatsApp you want to talk to, you already have an account on WhatsApp and you can keep using that. However, some people might appreciate the possibility to have this bridged communication, especially because it allows for much easier migration to signal (and similar) from people who "everyone is on WhatsApp". The more people move over, the more signal-to-signal communication can happen, etc.

Ultimately it is exactly like email. I think it's still worth using proton, even though 80% of your emails will be coming from or going to a gmail account.

The crux is having the ability to:

• know when you are talking with a user on WhatsApp
• block or refuse to talk with a user on WhatsApp.

Once you can choose, hardcore privacy people can keep talking only between signal users, but the interoperability can help more people moving over in the meanwhile.

Not OP but:

• population control (is hard but) can be done in a way that in 20-30 years starts having effect. Genocide is not the only way to reduce population?
• reducing the consumption of individuals does not amount necessarily to starvation and poverty either. Right now we produce too much and too poorly. Reducing consumption might mean less conspicuous consumption from the top 50% of the population but also less "things" that last more.

In both these examples unfortunately the main obstacle is economic.

A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Not sure what your "lesson" was referring to, but your old comment is exactly the definition of a strawman.

Let me remind it to you:

But yeah, sure just make it like all Muslims are fanatical terrorists, that will include them well in the society. Do we ban metal heads then because they’re satanist worshipers?

Nobody made any argument about making all muslims like fanatical terrorists, nobody mentioned anything about metal heads (we were talking about religion), but you wanted to use the refusal of these ridiculous made-up arguments because you couldn't anymore defend your main thesis (I assume), which is "Except it’s not a religious dress.".

So your "comparisons" are strawman because they have nothing to do with the other comparison term.

This said, I argued my way to every comment, you moved the goalpost 10000km now, moving from "they are not religious dresses" to "the whole topic is a strategy from the government to distract from..." (which might also be true, but it's completely unrelated as we are already discussing of this particular subject), and now you call me names for the sake of using basic logic in my conversation. Well, this lesson is free as well, it's called learn to fucking discuss like an adult. I am blocking you in the meanwhile because it's now obvious that you have absolutely no argument and you argue in bad faith as well.

Your comparisons are strawman arguments because they are argument nobody (definitely not me) made, which you are using to try to deligitimize other arguments that you can't challenge (apparently), by somehow pretending that your strawman and my arguments are similar.

Talk about the poor state of French schools if you wish, it is an important topic, but this doesn't make religious garments less religious. Your argument was that these are cultural markers, and NOT religious symbols, which is a pretty easy claim to debunk with a quick research on why those garments exist, who wears them, what they represent, etc.

Except it’s not a religious dress.

That's just because culture and religion are somewhat related. This does not make religious garments not religious.

But yeah, sure just make it like all Muslims are fanatical terrorists, that will include them well in the society.

Strawman

Do we ban metal heads then because they’re satanist worshipers?

Strawman

"We" actually told everyone what NOT to dress, because some dresses are actually not (only) garments but religious symbols. Again, if you use this argument I will play the devil's advocate and support people going in KKK uniform to school. Wouldn't we want to tell boys how to dress, no? Or a good ol' SS uniform.

Clothes sometimes are more than pieces of cloth we cover ourselves with, and some of them have religious value, whether you acknowledge it or not. You can argue that for you schools should NOT be a neutral space (regarding religion), but you can't make up argument such as religious clothing being worn for modesty.

I believe there are a huge number of ways we want to avoid young people express themselves in school. I am thinking for example about Nazi simbols, but the examples are countless. It's just that according to you religion is not "one of those things". I bet you wouldn't defend someone to express himself by coming to school in full KKK outfit in the same way, would you?

Also, given the fact that the law applies to everyone, I don't find it racist, and not even discriminatory. Again, Muslim people are disproportionally affected just because Islam has many of such symbols and garments, not because the law targets them specifically.Christians's veils are banned as well (like the one nuns wear),the difference is that only few people in specific contexts wear them.

The school did not ban children though, nor because of their religion.

The school complied with a law that forbids religious symbols/garments. Also the children were not banned, were asked to wear something else and most did.

Muslim children are perfectly able to attend school, provided that they do so without visible religious symbols, exactly like everyone else.

Accprding to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools you seem incorrect. The point is exactly that of preventing religious displays in schools, and I wouldn't call it fascism. In fact, fascist regimes have done exactly the opposite, giving huge visibility to religion and (the case in Italy) making Christianity religion of the state.

The comparison with same sex couple showing displays of affection seems completely ridiculous to me, especially because Muslims are disproportionally affected only because Islam is a religion in which there are more symbols, but it is not targeted specifically against then.

What is important is that people can, if they choose to do so, freely profess their own religion, or the lack thereof. This does not mean that this can be done in any space, and I am personally a big supporter for schools being very neutral spaces.

Christian crosses are actually forbidden in French school (from what I read). I don't know if anybody ever got removed from school from it, but the rule is there. I can't talk on what is against or not French constitution as I am not qualified to do so (not even for my own country), but I trust that if that's the case, courts will determine that.

A final remark, being Muslim is a choice, is not a birth condition nor a race (or ethnicity). This means that at most you can talk of religious discrimination, not racism. Coincidentally religious discrimination is very common in very religious countries (including Muslim countries), both towards other religions and even more against atheists or apostates.

As you can read in the article, most simply agreed to wear something else. For those who refused, some talks with families will follow. To me it seems a fairly rational way to enforce the rule.

All other religious symbols are also banned (in schools), so this argument seems pretty weak. One can agree or disagree, but considering religion a private matter that should stay out of the public buildings is a perfectly legitimate stance, in my opinion.