emptysongglass

You need to learn how to explain your ideas to other humans in more accessible language, because this isn't it. Your website tells me nothing and neither does your explanation.

But you don't have good cooling, good battery life, good standby, good speakers, or open firmware and don't appear to be interested in fixing any of these issues.

Bad example as Libera doesn't use most of the IRCv3 spec and they don't seem to be in any rush to become compliant. Shame because truly IRCv3 compliant networks do really feel modern, with QOL features like persistent sessions.

https://ircv3.net/support/networks

It is not disinformation. The Commission is unelected by the people. I specifically called out that the Commission does not serve the interests of the governed. That is a correct statement.

What's more the Commission is more than one person, unlike the US presidency.

And from a Dane here, it's far from isolated to one Danish freak: the majority of parties support Chat Control.

And it's a slippery slope. The UK already damned itself with the Investigatory Powers Act of 2016 that allowed for Technical Capability Notices to be served in secret to any organization they desired to backdoor.

Sometimes I think the HN contingent just willfully buries its head in the sand on issues of the EU, because they prefer to think of the EU as some idealist version of whatever they've lost as leftists in the US.

What this person is writing is correct. The reality of EU politics is anything but democratic. The EU is crowned by an unelected commission that does not serve the interests of the governed.

It's not clickbait. Many member states do support this. Much of the disagreement is on just how rights-violating the scanning should be.

The situation here in Denmark is dire: nobody in the Danish media reports on it, so everybody just shrugs. I've gone out of my way to educate my coworkers and most are unaware many members of our parliament want this. The number of parties that support it outnumber those who don't. Writing to our representatives is met with silence.

Everyone looking to Denmark as a model state should beware what happens when you have a population with such high trust in its government: the roots of autocracy are allowed to grow unfettered.

Why would you have respect for Berners-Lee? He sold out his own creation to corporate interests by supporting DRM.

Yet you keep name-calling, so who is acting rudely?

3 different applications to access your secrets is what you focused on and now you're moving the goalposts. KeePass having 3 different client applications is what you chose to make a mountain out of, yet they're all just porcelain in front of an agreed upon standard.

Making a kbdx file accessible in Dropbox or any other cloud service does not take technical wizardry.

Kindly stop your personal attacks.

Please don't make personal attacks on HN.

The only difference between an imagined smooth solution is the sync mechanism and a unified client application ecosystem, neither of which is really possible without a large company behind it.

I said you don't understand how KeePass works because you refer to 3 applications for 3 different OSes (2 mobile) as if they were a confusing mix of different applications, when really they're just client implementations around a single, formalized spec. And most folks don't use both iOS and Android so really there's just your choice of KeePass desktop app and one for Android or iOS.

No one says the plethora of email client choices is confusing. This is exactly the same.

KeePass is a community project, Bitwarden is not. These are just client applications that sync and interact with the .kbdx file the community has formalized a standard on. That's why Bitwarden has a unified client application ecosystem and KeePass does not.

You don't understand KeePass, which is fine, but please don't make bad assumptions like these if you don't understand the underlying reasons for why a thing is the way it is.

It's like calling out why there are two dozen email clients that speak IMAP.

> If you are 25 you should be seriously thinking in the next 2 years, and by 30 have them

I need to push back on this because no one is actually an adult at the age of 25 despite those people wishing it were so. You do not have your shit figured out and assuming a partner of similar age, neither do they. It's only starting in your 30s where you start to understand what it is to be a responsible adult to yourself and to the world.

So please, do not seriously consider having kids in your 20s, for all our sakes.

Nothing about this invalidates any of our assumptions because time does, in fact, exist for us humans.

This sort of science is frustrating for me because we all know exactly what we mean when we reason about time together. Science saying, "time does not exist" doesn't do anything useful for us, because we already intuitively know this statement to be false conventionally.

Is it just me or does the website render poorly on mobile?

Why is a programming language only available on macOS?

As many, many in your issue tracker have commented, you should not be building on Fedora as a base.

Your government recently mandated technical capabilities for breaking encryption. Australians let that fly. There is nothing special about Australians, just as there is also nothing special about the British people who also did nothing when the UK mandated technical capabilities to break encryption.

One could even make the argument that the people of these two countries are even more pliant than Americans when they enable a key capability for totalitarian surveillance states without a blink.

Tried that with MEPs for my country of Denmark: no reply.

Yes, it's easy to view Lucas' films with a rose-tinted lens, but try and watch them now and you see: poor acting, poor writing, one-dimensional characters and plot points.

Buddhism as an organized religion is opposed to warfare. That is the mainstream and majority view and practice. It derives its legitimacy from the Buddhist suttas. The First Precept — "I undertake the precept to refrain from taking life" — is universal across Theravāda, Mahāyāna, and Vajrayāna traditions.

Nationalistic deviations exist, have existed and will likely continue to emerge. These are Buddhist in name only — political appropriations of a tradition that fundamentally rejects violence.

The Buddha's teachings are available to anyone, can be practiced by anyone, and are unbound by culture, nation, or ethnicity.

> The ocean doesn’t accommodate a carcass, but quickly carries it to the shore and strands it on the beach. In the same way, the Sangha doesn’t accommodate a person who is unethical, of bad qualities, filthy, with suspicious behavior, underhand, no true ascetic or spiritual practitioner—though claiming to be one—rotten inside, festering, and depraved. But they quickly gather and expel them. Even if such a person is sitting in the middle of the Sangha, they’re far from the Sangha, and the Sangha is far from them.

— Anguttara Nikāya 8.19

What is it to be unethical? The First Precept, which prohibits the taking of life, is the first qualification of an ethical person and the first qualification to be a member of the Sangha: the community of Buddhist practitioners that includes laypeople, monks and nuns.

You continue to play a game of qualifying Buddhism under what cannot be qualified. When pressed for first-party sources justifying violence in Buddhism, you come up empty-handed and instead return to nationalistic violence flown under a false flag that is an abomination to Buddhism. You go on to then state that a majority of organized Buddhist faith allows for warfare and violence, which is false. It simply is not true that a majority of Buddhist denominations agree that warfare and violence are acceptable means of conduct.

Mahayana and Vajrayana are both branches of Buddhism that venerate texts most scholars of repute hold in very dubious regard. They came long after, and are stylistically distinct from, the Pali Canon.

> A. K. Warder notes that the Mahāyāna Sūtras are highly unlikely to have come from the teachings of the historical Buddha, since the language and style of every extant Mahāyāna Sūtra is comparable more to later Indian texts than to texts that could have circulated in the Buddha's putative lifetime. Warder also notes that the Tibetan historian Tāranātha (1575–1634) proclaimed that after the Buddha taught the sutras, they disappeared from the human world and circulated only in the world of the nagas. In Warder's view, "this is as good as an admission that no such texts existed until the 2nd century A.D."

I certainly do regard the actual expressions of faith by its many communities, but not all are correct, and one need look no further than to compare the actual root texts to the monstrous actions of people determined to burn the world down in its name. You are invited to do so for yourself, as the Buddha has always done, and compare the words to the actions of those who claim lineage.

> na haneyya na ghātaye

There is the Pali in a handful of words. Now you have the tools to discern for yourself: what does it tell us to do or not to do?

> And denying that Buddhist violence (that too backed by mainstream Buddhist ideologues in the largest Buddhist practicing countries in the world) is ridiculous.

You appear hellbent on conflating humans doing bad things on behalf of religious causes with Buddhism itself, which does not, in any way, condone any of the acts you've highlighted.

> $massacres highlights a significant strain of violence in Buddhism

If I tell you that a book that declares in the strongest possible language that no harm shall be done to rabbits was in fact a trick of the demiurge and that only true believers could discern the true message for why the mass murder of all rabbits in the world was good and then I tell you that I am the Prophet of the Book, the religion and its teachings would not change. I would just be some idiot who had murdered all the rabbits in the world.

The one who had lied and cheated and schemed would be responsible, not the author of the book or their teachings. They would have created a Bizarro World of their own creation that took its root in the misery of their own heart.

This Bizarro World is not Buddhism, was never Buddhism, and could not be Buddhism and I have the evidence from the words themselves that Buddhism is not of genocide, of hatred, and of bloodshed.

Again, this is incorrect. I have cited direct sources of Buddhist scripture that unequivocally denounce and condemn violence in all forms. Encourages is far too weak a word to describe Buddhist scripture on the topic, which uses strong language in every case. Prohibitions against violence are enforced by the Vinaya, which is the code of ethics all monks must follow.

If I were a human who came from a warrior culture that revered battle as the One True Way to find liberation, I would fully expect that human to be more violent than one who has dedicated their life to a non-violent religion. Do you really believe otherwise?

It is not an interpretation, it is a translation. I could just as well quote the Pali directly, which offers no such justification for the inherent violence you appear to claim (emphasis my own):

> Sabbe tasanti daṇaḍassa sabbe bhāyanti maccuno Attānaṃ upamaṃ katvā na haneyya na ghātaye. Sabbe tasanti daṇaḍassa sabbesaṃ jīvitaṃ piyaṃ Attānaṃ upamaṃ katvā na haneyya na ghātaye.

> This isn't to say Buddhism is a violent religion, but to deny that there is a very mainstream thread of majoritarianism in two of the largest Buddhist countries is ridiculous.

I never denied "majoritarianism". I denied that Buddhism condones violence, both in a plurality of Buddhist cultures and in the suttas themselves.

It's not an interpretation. It is the foundational suttas of all of Buddhism themselves, which I have linked to. The Pali from which they are translated contain the same explicit prohibition against violence.

Quoting Buddhist theologians and scholars is not the same as quoting the suttas themselves, which I have done. Please stop making false claims here.

This is simply not true. Most regional traditions of Buddhism do not allow for the use of violence with justification and, regardless, the Buddhist suttas do not provide any such justification.

Because Buddhism is explicitly anti-violence. It does not emerge from a vacuum. The Buddha himself explicitly, insistently, and repeatedly stressed this. It's in the very scriptures all of Buddhism is built on. Buddhism is not an idea. The existence of violent fanatics across all religions does not, in any way, invalidate this, because they are people acting in the name of a religion that contrary to their actions stresses, ad nauseum, non-violence in its foundational texts.

> The premise that Buddhism is anti-violence feels like a misunderstanding on itself.

Buddhism is anti-violence. I can't believe I need to make this argument here. Folks, if you're going to make statements, please do your research first. [1]

> Gananath Obeyesekere, Emeritus Professor of Anthropology at Princeton University, said that "in the Buddhist doctrinal tradition... there is little evidence of intolerance, no justification for violence, no conception even of 'just wars' or 'holy wars.' ... one can make an assertion that Buddhist doctrine is impossible to reconcile logically with an ideology of violence and intolerance" [2]

[1] https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/nonviolence.html

[2] https://books.google.dk/books?id=iAy5jsBAF0oC&pg=PA181&redir...