janto

Well, you can certainly seed only torrents that you think are valuable and are willing to take the risk for. What happens to the content you are not willing to take the personal risk for? That's the utility of networks that value freedom of information, which achieve it by hiding what you share, even from you.

Edit: ...and importantly, from whoever can seize your computer.

https://www.cloudflare.com/gdpr (seems broken)

https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/privacy/what-is-the-gdpr...

As a visitor to your website how can I know you are respecting my privacy?

Indeed.

It's also a problem that the studies are presented in ways where it is easily interpreted as about "the epicenter". The title (and content) should not have been "Wuhan market was epicentre of pandemic’s start, studies suggest", but rather, as you suggest, an amplification point. I guess that, because wording it in this way would equally support a lab hypothesis, it was unacceptable to (at least) the final person responsible. I am disappointed this gets past the reviewers or that it was introduced by editors. What is a reasonable conclusion to be drawn about Nature and their scientific competency? Should we just let it go?

From my perspective it could be videos of a government committing war crimes, 4chan archives, Twilight fanfic or system logfiles.

Being blind to what you're hosting is required if you want to be part of a network that values "freedom of information". Partly to avoid the nodes self-censoring and partly as a form of plausible deniability.

Very nice!

The credibility of these sources on these topics are no more. Weak claims that no one really contests (the market being an amplifier) being presented in a way that supposedly addresses the core concern (being the epicenter), is not going to cut it. Future events can only be prevented if there is a culture of truthfully addressing concerns and the water has been muddied too much by politics to trust anything here.

Trying not to upset an authoritarian to ease tension will only work in the short term. I'm sure Putin felt threatened for many reasons, both internal and external to Russia. Both valid and imaginary.

It seems that many in Europe hoped to turn a blind eye in return for economic success. I hope much can be recovered and ties restored, but probably not while Putin is at the helm.

Putin has now demonstrated the need for NATO membership to Ukrainians. If they get a choice, my bet is they would join eagerly.

That anger should be directed towards those that ignored and strengthened ties to Putin and his friends. There are many risks when supporting an autocratic regime. Germans will see these risks play out.

Putin's actions make more sense if you consider the invasion as serving his interests and not Russia's. None of this is going to play out in the favor of Russians, regardless of how the battle goes.

Putin has been characterized, by some in the US, as genius in his timing. I'm not familiar with any propaganda portraying Putin as dumb.

For the existing humanitarian crisis aspect, that is great, but prevention requires the support of their army.

I listened to Lex and you're right, Zuck was a nice guest for him. He asked somewhat tricky questions and Zuck could give reasonable answers that maybe could have only happened with Lex.

Thats is a bit of a problem though. When Zuck was asked what should be done he easily threw it back at Lex to answer. Lex went onto a meandering non-committal path trying to work out how to not offend and sound smart. Lex is too easy to manipulate.

Lex's main weakness is that he wants Love and is unwilling to prioritize Truth. He is agreeable and young.

I am worried that he'll get his interview with Putin.

But as I pointed out, it's not a stupid argument if the animals are provided with a nice life until they serve their delicious end. It's a win-win if they are treated with care.

I actually liked your change from Russia to Putin so apologies for me not explaining and causing confusion and another edit. My point was that you were more accurate to say that Putin is feeling threatened, than Russia is. And this change has further implications on the validity of his stated reasons.

Your change from Russia to Putin is key here...

I enjoy Lex, but I doubt he's going to ask and stick to tough questions (I haven't watched this one yet). Rogan might not ask technical questions, but he's more skilled at probing the topics many have concerns about. Such as "fact checking" and censorship.

It's up to Ukrainians to decide if they want to join NATO. Not businesses in another country.

If farming result in the existence of happy animals then the process definitely favors them. If it results in their unhappy existence then it does not favor them.

The argument around doing them the favor of providing them existence relies on them having a nice life, until the day we eat them. It sounds like you are opposed to them coming into existence because it means they exist in existential agony.

Also that physical agony is a near certainty, by your last paragraph. But that does not seem to be the core of your objection.

If you keep spelling things out then you're not very convincing or you're not understanding the opposite perspective.

You're conflating opportunity with outcome.

SVMs are incredibly performant and is one of the most easy to use, low hanging fruit if you have a practical ML problem.

Do you think it's viable to isolate the data trickle and block it or create fake responses?

Edit: or maybe a pi hole or something like nordvpn cybersec.

Yes, WAF is one of the features you get if you're not on their free app service plan. I think having the option of simply upgrading and turning it on if it becomes necessary, makes the free offering quite attractive.

I haven't used CF in anger, so can't vouch for it more than that.

What do you then mean by a "relatively small L7 ddos that Cloudflare would not likely mitigate"? It seems to me that their WAF would mitigate that and I can worry even less about threats.

Without their First Amendment rights, it is unlikely that Americans would even figure out if many parties might be a good idea. They'd also be unable to bring those into existence without it: freedom of expression, assembly, and the right to petition are the primary mechanism towards presenting a better future to others.

Americans should be super concerned about attempts at eroding dialog between its citizens. The government, corporations and activists have done everything they can to create a forced discourse.

I think that's the opposite of what the parent says: first build the thing and only then factor it out and reinclude it.

If the reactions seem bizarre, maybe you're missing something.

For me it was more than "just the tech". Python 3.x was not the Python 3000 I was promised for a long time: many of the additions did not warrant breaking changes (as demonstrated by the backports) and many of Python's deeper warts still remain unaddressed, even today.

I think the deeper issue is that at the rate that 2.x got popular, the original motivation, principles and process behind the language's development got diluted. The orchestration of the push for 3.x adoption was not technically motivated in a convincing manner and signaled a change in the process. I stopped trusting the process.