Contact this company if you're looking Best IP-TV Provider
Whats-app: (+12023675323)
I buy from him every year and I don't find any problems with the server, worth encouraging
Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive
941–950 of 965 posts
Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive
#9422022 Salaries for those interested: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/824... Compensation Key Employees and Officers Base Related Other Jim O'leary (Vp, Engineering) $666,909 $0 $33,343 Ehren Kret (Chief Technology Officer) $665,909 $0 $8,557 Aruna Harder (Chief Operating Officer) $444,606 $0 $20,500 Graeme Connell (Software Developer) $444,606 $0 $35,208 Greyson Parrelli (Software Developer) $…
Salaries: Pretty abusive salaries for a non profit but that seems to be pretty much the standard nowadays, right? Bandwidth: I took at quick look and see that chat.signal.org resolves to AWS. If they are paying AWS for a lot of bandwidth, that is very expensive. Let's take a quick look: They say they use 20PB per year of bandwidth for voice calls alone, this costs them $1.7M a year. According to AWS pricing for great…
>Salaries: Pretty abusive salaries for a non profit
Non profit employees aren’t monks, they don’t need to be talking vows of poverty.
Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive
#943Earlier quoted context omitted.
how many chat services do you use? and how many are making money off of you in other ways?
not who you replied to, but: - signal for family and some techy friends - whatsapp cuz some friends dont really get signal - imessage cuz some friends dont get whatsapp nor signal - viber cuz family across seas and that's whats popular there - slack with some friends cuz it's nice to have focused discussions in channels - discord cuz its better for gaming - ig messaging cuz i stay in touch with less close acquaintanc…
There's also Wire, IRC, Telegram, and Threema. SMS I also have a subscription on, but that feels different so I didn't include that in my count, and Keybase I haven't used in a while now but that might also be part of the list for some people
Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive
#944Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wish their justification for dropping SMS capability from their Android app to move away from phone numbers was a little more transparent about the obvious cost aspect rather than solely sticking to the patronizing "we're saving insecure messaging users from themselves" messaging they had. I found it pretty obnoxious. I think people generally get "valuable nonprofit + huge expense = not-sustainable = bad."
It's a lot more nuanced than that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33258684
It would be great if that was what was in their announcement.
Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive
#945Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was a comic I've never been able to find about wikipedia asking for money, it basically had them being that one crazy dude yelling at you to donate, and getting worse as time passed and you tried to ignore them. Then it showed a raw screenshot of wikipedias nag screen. Unsure who drew it or where it went, but I regret not archiving it, because it conveys what it feels like every time. I just don't want to donat…
Is it this one? https://bigmemes99.funnyjunk.com/pictures/4chan_1bff07_28908...
No but that's kinda good lol
Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive
#946Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Also, I disagree that men in women's bathrooms is inherently predatory. Frankly, this discriminates against fathers of young children because often one has to bring a daughter into the bathroom or change their infants diaper. I don't agree with you on this, in almost all circumstances they should be using the bathroom appropriate for the sex of the adult, which in this case is the male one. If there genuinely is no…
“How are you gonna enforce this when it primarily harasses the women you claim to protect” isn’t a male claim. Way more women who never experienced male puberty and don’t have/never had a cock and balls are sexually harassed about this shit than trans ever are, just because there’s probably 100x more short-haired small-titty chicks than trans women. Also, frankly banning fathers from protecting their daughters in bat…
Like I said in my last comment, if you're thinking about female-only spaces only in terms of how women can forcibly stop men from entering, then you're looking at this from the perspective of male entitlement instead of focusing on women's needs. How about instead, the males just respect women's spaces, and stop trying to convert every female-only space into a mixed-sex space? Every time a so-called "trans woman" disrespects the space and boundaries of women for his own selfish pleasures, he's adding to this problem. It really shows how little these men actually understand and empathise with women, when they're exhibiting this dominance behaviour.
Also, some female-only spaces can be and are enforced by authorities with the resources to do so, for example prisons. It is well understood by most people that prisons need to be separated by sex for the safety and dignity of female inmates. The problem is that in some places, women's prisons have been incarcerating men who say they have a "female gender identity" in there too. There have been numerous cases of these men raping, sexually assaulting and even impregnating the women they have been imprisoned with. It is appalling and shows exactly why women need single-sex spaces away from these predators.
> Also, frankly banning fathers from protecting their daughters in bathrooms and changing their diapers is discriminatory. There's nothing predatory about a dad changing his infants diaper and it's utterly disgusting to portray it as such. This is precisely the gender discrimination we should be fighting against as a civilized society.
No, what is needed in this case are baby changing facilities in male and gender-neutral spaces. Not carte blanche access to female-only spaces by men.
Also please actually read my comments before responding. In no way did I say or even imply that a father changing his child's nappy is predatory. I believe it's a good thing when fathers are more involved in child care than is traditionally the case. You are railing against an argument you invented inside your own mind.
Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive
#947Earlier quoted context omitted.
“How are you gonna enforce this when it primarily harasses the women you claim to protect” isn’t a male claim. Way more women who never experienced male puberty and don’t have/never had a cock and balls are sexually harassed about this shit than trans ever are, just because there’s probably 100x more short-haired small-titty chicks than trans women. Also, frankly banning fathers from protecting their daughters in bat…
Like I said in my last comment, if you're thinking about female-only spaces only in terms of how women can forcibly stop men from entering, then you're looking at this from the perspective of male entitlement instead of focusing on women's needs. How about instead, the males just respect women's spaces, and stop trying to convert every female-only space into a mixed-sex space? Every time a so-called "trans woman" dis…
Nah you said Carte Blanche anyone male in such a space is predatory, including dad changing diapers and trans women peeing not talking to anyone. You’re also still not addressing the fundamental fact that women who have never experienced male puberty experience far, far more abuse by other nosey weirdos trying to get into their genitalia just because they don’t perform the sort of femininity demanded to enforce who gets to take a piss in the McDonald’s.
Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive
#948Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like I said in my last comment, if you're thinking about female-only spaces only in terms of how women can forcibly stop men from entering, then you're looking at this from the perspective of male entitlement instead of focusing on women's needs. How about instead, the males just respect women's spaces, and stop trying to convert every female-only space into a mixed-sex space? Every time a so-called "trans woman" dis…
Nah you said Carte Blanche anyone male in such a space is predatory, including dad changing diapers and trans women peeing not talking to anyone. You’re also still not addressing the fundamental fact that women who have never experienced male puberty experience far, far more abuse by other nosey weirdos trying to get into their genitalia just because they don’t perform the sort of femininity demanded to enforce who g…
No, this is what I said:
> Exactly, any male who disregards women's boundaries and imposes himself on a female-only space is exhibiting predatory behaviour by ignoring the lack of consent. Those males who call themselves women are no exception to this.
Then it was you who brought up this unlikely scenario:
> I disagree that men in women's bathrooms is inherently predatory. Frankly, this discriminates against fathers of young children because often one has to bring a daughter into the bathroom or change their infants diaper.
To which I replied with the following, consistent with my earlier comment in that the father needs to ensure that if such a rare and urgent scenario should arise, he receives consent from the women present and to ensure he isn't disregarding boundaries and imposing himself:
> I don't agree with you on this, in almost all circumstances they should be using the bathroom appropriate for the sex of the adult, which in this case is the male one. If there genuinely is no baby changing facility available that isn't in the ladies' bathroom then for the welfare of the child an exception can be made, but the father needs to check with the women using this space first.
> This scenario is very different to the males who feel entitled to use women's spaces whenever they please and for their own satisfaction, rather than to provide for their child as in your example.
Of course the best option is that baby changing facilities are provided in unisex or male-only spaces too, which is often the case these days.
As for this part of your comment:
> You're also still not addressing the fundamental fact that women who have never experienced male puberty experience far, far more abuse by other nosey weirdos trying to get into their genitalia just because they don't perform the sort of femininity demanded to enforce who gets to take a piss in the McDonald's.
Firstly, there are no women who have experienced male puberty. The people who experience male puberty are boys and then men.
Secondly, this isn't a "fundamental fact", it's something you're claiming because you want to try to justify the invasion of women's spaces by men who pretend to be women.
Thirdly, I see you're still narrowly focusing on bathrooms and are ignoring the growing problem of these men demanding and gaining access to other spaces that were female-only up until their incursion. Any comment on, as I discussed above, that in some jurisdictions these men are being incarcerated in the female prison estate, and how harmful this has been for women prisoners?
Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive
#949Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those are just non-profit fundraiser consulting tactics. Don't take them personally, just ignore them. The reason they exist is that Wikipedia has too much money, so they spend some on consultants who say they can raise more. It's weird, but that's how the world works. I would much prefer the Wikipedia endowment model of non-profit orgs. They have a standard operating procedure with a predictable budget, and endowmen…
> Those are just non-profit fundraiser consulting tactics. Don't take them personally, just ignore them. The reason they exist is that Wikipedia has too much money, so they spend some on consultants who say they can raise more. It's weird, but that's how the world works. It's still shitty, even if it's a shitty "standard practice" and not a shitty thing being done to me particularly. Honestly, it seems like Wikipedia…
Yeah I agree. But that's consulting for you. There is a lot to not like about the evils of consulting, but wikipedia being free and doing pledge drives are on the more mild side of what's wrong.
Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive
#950Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Those are just non-profit fundraiser consulting tactics. Don't take them personally, just ignore them. I don't take them personally, of course, but they do encourage me to avoid forking over any money.
any excuse to not donate!
Wait till you find out the truth about matching donations.