891–900 of 927 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most hobby communities in my spheres of interest have been subsumed into Discord. It is yet another silo, but it does feel lively. I don't think I'm contradicting you here, I just feel less negatively about it.
I think Discord is one of the worst things to happen to the web. So much useful, interesting content gets walled off and locked away. It's not public, not searchable, not linkable, not indexable. I'm never going to stumble across an interesting tidbit of information on Discord while browsing the web. And even when you do have access to a particular server, you'll often struggle to find something posted a while back,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google can properly classify email spam. They should be able to fight this as well. Problem is they are the ones funding the poor quality spam and they're in turn profiting by taking money from advertisers.
Spamming can be found by metadata and reports. There is no "this site is absolute crap" button for them to find useful feedback in searches.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A camera should not need to be hacked. What do you expect to accomplish by hacking the camera? We should be able to move certificates on and off it because they would most likely expire anyway. So, you can get the keys from the camera, what then? You use openssl to sign an image that shouldn't be signed... what then? You do this enough and get caught, you lose your cert and can never pass the kyc to get another one.…
> You use openssl to sign an image that shouldn't be signed... what then? You do whatever you want with your provably genuine fake image. > You do this enough and get caught How are you going to get caught? By the signature owner repudiating some of the images "he" signed? I can see that working out for him.
Besides wasn't your argument "hacking" a minute ago? So you concede that then? You seem to have moved on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stop the purchase and sale of user data, period. Kill the weed at the root.
Online advertising is what drives the desire for user data. Ban online advertising and the demand for user data withers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a dream, to ban targeted advertising globally. It would solve many problems and possibly, cherry on top, kill some corporations
Or, just ban advertising. Humans are only now figuring out pointy shoes are bad for people's feet. This species is wrong about almost everything when it comes to its own well being and like pointy shoes - it's a completely unnecessary self-own that barely benefitted anyone.
I think advertising runs a little deeper into our identity and history than you are thinking. If you have a sign in your window describing your wares, that's advertising. If you're standing on a street corner inviting customers to enter, that's advertising. If you're doing nearly anything to make the world know that your business exists, you're advertising. I'd rather not live in a world where "ad cops" see fit to intrude and opine on such activities. Attacking PII brokers, on the other hand, would do far less collateral damage.
I'm with you on the shoes though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everything is perceived, and our perception gets filtered based on our prior experience. Just because we're not directly perceiving objective reality, that does not mean _everything_ is opinion. JFK was shot, that's not just my opinion. Unless you choose to believe some kind of post-modern crazyness, in which case - have at it.
You don’t actually know JFK was shot from your own personal experience. You just choose to believe what credible source claim. And even if you were there, who’s to say that your fallible memory is incorrect? To be clear, I don’t think this line of thinking helps much. But it’s an interesting philosophical dilemma.
I'm saying that not everything is opinion, that there does exist a category called 'fact'. And you're talking about something else - a chain of trust with respect to those facts.
This is starting to go down the crazyness line I had mentioned. I get it's fun to philosophize about such things, but it's not how we live.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really no. Some things can be proven while some cannot. The colour of grass is something that’s scientifically measurable. My point is that some broadcasters are very strict about sticking to the facts. Some will misrepresent those facts but not technically lie (eg discuss statistics that favour their partisan view but don’t share the full context behind those stats). And then there’s broadcasters like Fox News t…
Communication cannot be scientifically measured. Someone's expression being a "blatant lie" can only ever be an opinion, fundamentally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or, just ban advertising. Humans are only now figuring out pointy shoes are bad for people's feet. This species is wrong about almost everything when it comes to its own well being and like pointy shoes - it's a completely unnecessary self-own that barely benefitted anyone.
> ban advertising I think advertising runs a little deeper into our identity and history than you are thinking. If you have a sign in your window describing your wares, that's advertising. If you're standing on a street corner inviting customers to enter, that's advertising. If you're doing nearly anything to make the world know that your business exists, you're advertising. I'd rather not live in a world where "ad c…
Pedantry is not a counter argument, it's a deflection. We are not in court.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don’t actually know JFK was shot from your own personal experience. You just choose to believe what credible source claim. And even if you were there, who’s to say that your fallible memory is incorrect? To be clear, I don’t think this line of thinking helps much. But it’s an interesting philosophical dilemma.
"Who’s to say that your fallible memory is incorrect" - you can very easily test if someone has a bullet through their head. Well, assuming someone didn't go and steal their brain. I'm saying that not everything is opinion, that there does exist a category called 'fact'. And you're talking about something else - a chain of trust with respect to those facts. This is starting to go down the crazyness line I had mention…
Do you have access to their head? How do you know that someone didn’t swap that head for someone else who had been shot?
Like I said, this is purely a philosophic argument. I’m not actually trying to suggest that there isn’t such thing as “facts”.
> And you're talking about something else - a chain of trust with respect to those facts.
No, I’m making a psychological point that our perceptions are what we use to construct our reality, and that our perceptions are malleable. If they weren’t, then drugs would have no effect, psychosis wouldn’t be a thing, and people’s opinions wouldn’t differ about even the most straightforward things like god, globe vs flat earth, and so on and so forth.
> This is starting to go down the crazyness line I had mentioned. I get it's fun to philosophize about such things, but it's not how we live.
I agree. As I said in the previous comment:
“To be clear, I don’t think this line of thinking helps much. But it’s an interesting philosophical dilemma.”