emptysongglass

For one, because the suttas all state multiple times, directly, with no room for interpretation, that you shouldn't harm others.

>All

>tremble at the rod,

> all

>are fearful of death.

>Drawing the parallel to

> yourself,

>neither kill nor get others to kill.

>

>All

>tremble at the rod,

> all

>hold their life dear.

>Drawing the parallel to

> yourself,

>neither kill nor get others to kill.

— Dhammapada 129–130

>A disciple has faith in that teacher and reflects: 'The Blessed One in a variety of ways criticizes & censures the taking of life, and says, "Abstain from taking life." There are living beings that I have killed, to a greater or lesser extent. That was not right. That was not good. But if I become remorseful for that reason, that evil deed of mine will not be undone.' So, reflecting thus, he abandons right then the taking of life, and in the future refrains from taking life. This is how there comes to be the abandoning of that evil deed. This is how there comes to be the transcending of that evil deed.

— Samyutta42.8

And on and on and on. [1] You would absolutely expect other humans, who might live by codes with no such prohibitions, to behave differently.

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

You've left out Element, which does provide a similar suite of features with its Spaces. I concede Mattermost and Rocket.Chat. Thanks for the correction.

I was a user. They're not baseless accusations, they're statements of technical fact and a statement of ethical belief. I don't believe it's right to deny users (including non-business users like myself) a capability that costs peanuts to run as a strong-arming tactic to get them to pay. I know exactly what I'm critiquing and why.

I'm not going to source-build and force a community of folks to source-build an APK to access an essential technical capability of a messaging app. Zulip is essentially rendered as useless in such a case. That is wrong and unethical.

Delta Chat does provide notifications.

Briar allows you to run its Mailbox app on another device, giving you the tool to host your own notifications without building your own binary.

I know because I run both.

I wrote my comment because I want you to stop this practice. Being demoralized doesn't appear to change your mind about the decision to do what not a single other FOSS messaging app out there does. Zulip is the only one. Maybe reconsider Zulip's stance given how completely alone it is in its choice.

Your team made the decision, now you get to own it. And I'll keep putting a light on it until it changes. You call it vitriol, I call it fair warning to anyone considering adopting Zulip.

I am not a business and I certainly would not touch Zulip with a ten-foot pole given your team's decision.

Zulip committed the cardinal sin of stripping out notification support from their mobile apps for anyone not paying to force people to pay them.

Every other messaging app out there that is open source covers the minimal costs associated (and for Zulip, with an unpaid userbase that is tiny, these costs are laughably small) to host the infra associated. Note that Firebase Cloud Messaging itself is free. Wire, Signal, Threema, every single XMPP app, Element: none of these force users to build and distribute modded apks just to get notifications.

It was a tactic and it sucked and it burned any and all goodwill I had for Zulip.

I won't presume you're purposely misunderstanding my argument, so let me be clearer: the language you're using, where you accuse one side (not your side) of making up language is not constructive.

You're choosing not to engage in good faith with those who you disagree with by claiming the very basis of their language is made up and therefore invalid.

Do you really think that's an appropriate vehicle to engage with anyone if the goal is constructive dialog toward resolution?

You can do better than this, as can everyone else on both sides of the aisle who others the opposition to a state of incoherent invectives. You can certainly do much better than engaging with me in the patronizing and insulting way you have.

> "Cancel culture" is the same bullshit as "virtue signaling": made up nonsense intended to poison any discussion and blunt criticism without needing to do or say anything substantive.

That sounds exactly like the same made up language of "sealioning" and "concern trolling" weaponized by the same people accusing the other side of making up "cancel culture" and "virtue signaling". Maybe you don't hold the ethical high ground and never did.

Is it not clear that cancel culture played a role in the broader misinformation landscape? The argument seems to be undermining itself.

Take, for example, the early discussions around the origins of COVID-19. Legitimate scientific hypotheses—such as the possibility of a lab leak in Wuhan—were swiftly shut down. Scientists were canceled because they didn’t align with a dominant narrative.

You've done a good job of explaining the relevant de minimis rules, but you've deflected or minimized the EU's fault.

Inspection fees, duties and taxes make it so functionally no Danish consumer bothers to purchase goods shipped from the US. For Americans to then come rushing to our aid when us poor Europeans are getting a dose of what we've been giving for decades is ironic, to say the least.

If readers believe I am making false claims, please engage with me. I live in Denmark, as a Dane, and this is what I and any Dane who has bought goods from the US, has experienced directly.

The actual, lived experience is far different than whatever any bloc or country may claim (such as being in favor of free trade). The EU has always been economically protectionist, since its birth.

Hold on now. For consumers, the only thing that's mattered as far as we're concerned is the fact the US had de minimis, which effectively meant no duties paid on all relevant goods a US consumer might want.

The EU, on the other hand, has made buying goods from the US, for consumers, horrifically expensive, including reducing the value of non-duty paid goods to essentially zero and leaving it up to EU member countries to decide if they then wanted to charge an additional "inspection fee" often more than the value of the goods themselves. Spoiler: those countries did.

So, your point isn't really relevant from a consumer point of view. The EU and its member states have tried every dirty trick in the book to make it as awful as possible to buy anything from the US.

"Some of my" post history? Do you realize how many comments I've made here? How far back did you have to go? Did you also get to the part where I have repeatedly stood up for Ukraine's sovereignty and presented arguments against anyone defending Russia's invasion of Ukraine? How for one second do you think the way you've conducted yourself with me is acceptable?

Linking to vulnerabilities in a protocol that hasn't been used for 8 years and misrepresenting that fact by omission is simply unethical.

Attack my arguments with reasonable, evidence-based arguments. Do not make personal attacks. That is in the HN rules.

You've presented falsehoods and unfounded conspiracy theories. I've called you out on them. I expect better from any human being on Hacker News and I will continue to, whatever the topic.

[flagged]

You've gone way off base here and have made a colorful array of unfounded accusations, including strongly hinting I must be part of an astroturfing brigade, that Secret Chats only available on mobile devices constitutes an intentional "backdoor", that I am a "useful idiot", that for the purposes of internet argumentation E2EE chats don't actually exist, etc.

What I asked you to do was to stop misrepresenting your own bizarre theories as fact and stop linking microblog posts and blog posts describing vulnerabilities of a completely rewritten protocol that have nothing to do with its current. That is dishonest and not a reasonable basis for any argument.

There are many ways of honestly portraying the problems of Telegram without resorting to false inventions, such as its immense problem of spam and ads and the fact that E2EE is not available across all devices and for group chats.

That's all well and good, but be truthful in your presentation.

> When I said Telegram only has E2EE in internet debates, that means people like you who love to point out it's technically there, but who also fail to understand what it takes for such feature to be even used on a daily basis.

But you are being dishonest when you make an incorrect statement like this. Don't do that.

EDIT:

> makes you look like an astroturfer employed by Telegram: https://tsf.telegram.org/

I just read the linked page through: this is a request for volunteers to answer support questions for Telegram. How did you make the mental leap from a request for support volunteers to recruitment ad for astroturfers?

Except to the protocol, which you continue to post aged posts identifying vulnerabilities that have nothing to do with the rewritten version. That is not honest presentation of the facts.

> There is no free trade, EU was tariff heavy and protectionist since forever

To add to this as an EU citizen, try and buy any good from the US as a private EU citizen: not only will you be visited with a bill for 25 percent of what you paid, you will also pay a truly staggering "handling fee" to essentially state-sponsored grifters (here in Denmark called "Told") that will ensure you never buy anything from the US again.

The US had de minimis allowing US citizens to buy most anything they could imagine from abroad without additional fees on import, which Trump has now thrown out the window, but I can't help but feel we're getting our just desserts here.

You're again linking to old critiques of an old protocol no longer in use. Can you stop doing that, please?

Are you aware the article you link to technically critiques MTProto 1, including links to web archives of the MTProto 1 docs?

> MTProto's main issues are not the teething issues of the yester-years. It's the fact every chat is sent to the server that can then read the messages. Telegram only has E2EE in internet debates about it's non-existent E2EE in practice.

Telegram does in fact have E2EE available in the form of Secret Chats, so that's just an incorrect statement from you.

Regardless, that wasn't what I was rebutting. If anyone is going to have a reasonable debate about Telegram's problems, at least do so reasonably, without resorting to well-worn and facile language invented by the person who has the most to gain from its use. Moxie is not at all innocent in any of this and I'm glad he's no longer involved with Signal, which I use every day.

And every time someone makes this comment. MTProto 2 uses standard crypto primitives. Besides this, do you know who else rolled their own crypto? Moxie. You don't get to roll your own crypto first and then weaponize this against your opponents but that's exactly what he did along with abusing words like "plaintext" to describe any encryption not E2EE.

And you have illustrated my point perfectly, even down to using air quotes to describe a relationship of my own. Did you intend to go further and perhaps call me something truly awful? As I am not "center" according to you.

I am able to maintain friendships with people I disagree with, even on very fundamental things.

You capture exactly the drift that has occurred in discourse, where neither side is able to talk to each other with any level-headedness, but remains fixed in escalation, certain the other side intends their extinction.

This looks far superior or what am I missing?

Why would you blanket care about the rights of minorities? I care about the rights of lots of beings, but not minorities for minorities sake.

The person isn't making outlandish claims. You can search the web and validate all of them.

Liberals, as in new leftists responsible for the majority of purity spiral shaming we've seen on the internet for oh the last two decades now, are in fact responsible for their fair share of extremist ideologies that some folks have now taken as self-evident. This is despite the fact that many of us who once considered ourselves part of their ranks are completely sick of its absolutist language.

I've been pushed into what I guess must be a kind of center because it seems we can no longer have any discourse of any nuance around issues like trans people without being labeled a fascist or maniac neo-Nazi right-winger.

To take an example of this, I have a very close friend who is trans but even she is sick of how faddish transness has become. She insists she's a trans-medicalist, something I only recently learned about, which seems to set the bar appropriately high to being what global society (not the ultra-left view that dominates places like HN and Reddit) deems a woman.

I actually do believe in biological gender and even think the fact biological women are out there bleeding and suffering once a month in ways men can't even begin to understand does in fact separate them from other people stating they are now a woman. Or literally growing a human being inside them is both a privilege and a horror that marks someone so indelibly we call this person a woman.

Yet I can no longer reasonably even engage most of you in a nuanced discourse about this without likely getting downvoted to oblivion. There was a time once when you could, but now it seems that time has passed.

Their point was that you're not going to be hard-pressed to find talented vinyl DJs, as you otherwise indicated.

Please don't write snide comments here. They don't belong on HN or anywhere else, really.

That's not what I said. I said, especially in conjunction with correct medication.

You're not arguing in good faith, and haven't everywhere you've commented in this thread. You've been nasty, short, and insulting to everyone you've engaged with.

Equating the benefits of meditation and learning to exercise the muscle of attention to "vagina crystals" is pure ignorance with an agenda.

Because attaching to an unstable spectrum of symptoms and making it an essential cornerstone of an "I" is a terrible idea, no matter who you are. The "I" is just as formless, slippery, and unstable.

Secondly, when we do attach, we now have a shield we can use to abdicate responsibility for, well, the duties of being a human in a society. I've had to remind people who have thrown their hands up to exclaim, "I have ADHD!" that hey there buddy, so do I, but I still have to live my life right here in the same society/job/relationship they do.

Where diagnoses like ADHD are useful is as frameworks to understanding your own symptoms, but there's no reason to pull them in as part of you, and I've seen a great deal of harm done in our generation by people insisting on playing out their identity fantasies.

I liked their announcements and demos and continue to like them.

It's not an essential part of my identity. There are symptoms that I sometimes and sometimes do not display that can be managed with medication and behavioral changes.

Part of the problem is the identifying with a spectrum of symptoms we assume to be eternal and unchanging.