> Saying it's not that serious is the thought-terminating cliche.
Exactly. Such tactic if reducing seriousness can be also used to promote future crimes. Hitler didn’t became ‘Hitler as we know him’ in one day. There were stages of ‘progress’.
772 karma · joined October 9, 2019
Exactly. Such tactic if reducing seriousness can be also used to promote future crimes. Hitler didn’t became ‘Hitler as we know him’ in one day. There were stages of ‘progress’.
Their insulting comment is not based on anything real just as their arguments.
It serves as a form of mockery or dismissiveness towards you. It was used also to belittle and undermine the seriousness of the discussion. Typical for russian propaganda.
it’s not a delusion. it’s typical russian propaganda tactics. explained here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36270224
Exactly. He doesn’t. But it doesn’t matter for russian propaganda which is known for intentional twisting facts and expressions and making their opponent to explain obvious lies. Russian propaganda uses such twisting as en excuse to promote their narrative even if unrelated.
The initial question about Bush was invented in order to shift the discussion from undesired topic and deliver narrative in which actions of Bush and putin would look similar which is intentional lie to cover genocide actions performed by russia in Ukraine.
You keep using this word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
Phobia suggests imagination of non existing threat.
Contrary to that deadly Russian aggression is reality we are witnessing daily in Ukraine.
“russophobia” is another term invented by russian propaganda to cover own aggression. Usage of this term informs enough about those who use it.
Your efforts are in vain. There is awareness of crimes against humanity and human rights performed by russia again and again.
Anyway, sorry to disappoint.
Just as before you should probably discuss it with your russian friends. Not with me.
I am sure they will be more than happy to share obsession with improving plans and reasoning behind blowing something up.
Their lies will most likely make ‘sense’ to you and there you might find some excitement and surprises you are possibly looking for.
I’ve corrected BBC speculation. No discussion with russian lies.
> It may be blown by Russia, but again it may be not.
Here we observe the essence of such posts.
Very in-line with inventing as much versions as possible. Poor performance though. I wonder if there have been any studies regarding how helping russian propaganda affects sleeping quality of those who practice it.
Perhaps try to go with this version: ‘Most likely Harry Potter was involved … after all he was seen on some bridge and was throwing something … ’
you should probably discuss it with your russian friends. Not with me. I do not wish to be part of such discussion.
I think there is no a proper time to blow the dam just like I think the whole russian aggression ‘was’ and ‘is’ pointless to begin with. On the other hand there is a lot of dumb idiots in russia who think it was a good idea to start the war against Ukraine. There are also people convinced of having certain level of intelligence and funny enough wish to help those russians in the same time. So you can talk with them and discuss when it is ‘mature’ to blow some dam.
Like I said, BBC is getting there … hopefully .
I am not going to edit the reality just because BBC is slow. Like I said I took their article as related, nothing more. The idea of title is to express the essence of the topic shortly. BBC have to put some bs at the end because they have failed to work an find out but I do not have to. Actually if we think about it they do not have to as well. Their role and obligation should be to deliver what really has happened, the objective reality. Not the middle between lie and reality which is a lie by definition and not ‘this side have said this’ and ‘other side have said that’ and BBC have no idea what is credible. What they do is not journalism , it is a BS picture that does not represent the objective reality.
Please refrain from editing me and trying to edit the real event. The same goes for BBC which should also refrain from this.
https://nitter.hu/Gerashchenko_en/status/1666061532080361472...
It is unclear what you mean by ‘known’.
Known to whom? To you? To BBC? If it’s not known to you or to BBC it doesn’t mean it’s not known. It means it’s not known to you or/and BBC.
The title I provided is not at odds to what is known to me.
>.. and in-line with the war of narrative, another fiercely contested front of this conflict.
It is in-line with what well known about the dam construction and russian preparations to blow it more than half a year ago already.
It would be interesting to see you analyse your own efforts here to see how much they are ‘in-line with the war of narrative’
> I wonder what the second order effect this will have …
well, possibly some people would prefer to dwell into entertaining philosophy and contribute to creation of right amount of fog to hide the truth and own ignorance.
3:2=1.5 and 1920:1080=1.777…
or am I missing something?
btw sending ballistic rockets to bomb Kiev’s population is hardly justified by anything anyway.
This is exactly what they believe. More then that , they are told that some of Ukrainians are “nazis” who kill ‘normal’ Ukrainians. They’ve been told that all horrible bombing scenes the world is witnessing are done not by rus. invader but by by those “nazis” Ukrainians. They are truly believe that and they are happy that rus. army is saving “normal” Ukrainians.
Talk to me about their IQ but it is impossible to convince them otherwise, and trust me I’ve tried and others tried they are complete zombies and would not trust even relatives. They would say that you are brain washed by western propaganda and only them are proud russians who know the truth. No logic can convince them because the source of their believes is not logically based but emotionally based.
Yes it’s that bad! And people in the west who do not understand that are too naive and have no idea with what they are dealing and how enormously dangerous it is. For many people this war came as big surprise. They still think that if russians only knew they would stop. Only force cam stop them now. Sanctions are too little too late and too slow and people in Ukraine are dying also due to the stupidity and naivety of those who can stop it.
If you think I am exaggerating, try to convince at least one russian, and share your experience here !!!
People in the west are too naive to realise that in russia no body asks what people think. The level of propaganda is so strong that people would believe whatever they are told.
The idiocy of those in the west who think that russians can decide something once they face sanctions is overwhelming. In the very long therm it may be but thus completely inadequate measure in the moment.
Another idiocy is to think that claiming that NATO isn’t the part of the conflict can prevent them to actually become a part of the conflict. The moment russia will decide they will invent the cause to attack just as they did with Ukraine.
((ab . c) . d . nil)
isn't a valid s-expression. Maybe it should be
((ab . c) d . nil)>... not a valid argument, especially not after 15 years of it not happening.
It's not about trusting or not particular company. The idea is to protect and insist on certain level of respect toward owners of the computers that no company would dare/able to diminish without consequnces.
>"Domino's added a pizza I don't like to their menu, what will be next? Their entire line up will be a horrible inedible mess in a few years!"
>See how stupid that sounds?
"what will be next" question was addressing the issue of trusting to any company and about level of dependency from any company for any owner of any computer. The context of the question was not about trusting particular company. When the context is switched then anything may appear "stupid" but then it is interpretation to blame not the question.
>All you have to do is not buy an iPhone (like I didn't either) and stop spreading FUD about Macs.
The issue I am discussing can not be resolved by marked and buying preferences and therefore 'just buy something else' would not work and cannot help.
Like I said above, it's not about trusting Macs or company. It's about pushing back against the tendency to make personal computers more dependent and less personal.
It's about respecting independence for the owner not about security, not about trust to a particular company. It's about making trust to the company irrelevant enough. It's about preserving level of respect to the owner which reduces dependency and importance of the trust to a particular company.
So iPhone is closed for 15 years already and thus "the future is doom and gloom" is happening for 15 years already. The more important question is what will be next.
>You really need to find an argument other than an unqualified "the future is doom and gloom" when after all this time that future hasn't come and the platform remains open.
Argument can be qualified or unqualified depending on the topic. It is unclear which topic assumed here.
Sure I just have an impression after some googling that this DFU happens much more frequently then one would expect. Certainly I didn't expect it to happen in the first day after purchase but it did. So perhaps this pleasing 'much better' ability to fix it by just connecting it with another device that you probably do not possess(in my case) comes with another pleasure of having to do it more frequently. If that is the case then I really prefer the state to which you are accustomed to.
Many follow their example and without push back there will be no someone else because average users my not understand consequences unless they are educated by people who do understand them. Like with many other areas requiring certain level of expertise to understand consequences of certain desicions.
> we’ve tried relying on “user responsibility” before, >Why should average users who would otherwise be served perfectly well by Apple’s solution be required to be “responsible”
Do you believe in choice? If you do then average users should have a choice whether to rely on Apple or switch such functionality off. Without having such choice people become less and less responsible. You can say they choose by buying such machines but I do not think this could be qualified as a choice just like accepting EULA. It's not really a choice.
Thank you for your advice. The system doesn't have package manager and installing one doesn't seem like safe option at least until I'll be fluent with what exactly package manager does. On debian machine I did what you've suggested. This is not debian nor CentOS. It's embedded solution. In such case it seems like easier to install only emacs. I've already installed some custom application with libs and it was a headache. I wrote my own custom application for it and there I just link statically everything I need to have less trouble with installing.
For now ... Thank you for the link but may I suggest you to think about the future and where it leads.
The full control of devices you own is absolutely essential. It requires a complete transparency of basic components like cpu micro-code, firmware and hardware otherwise it can and will be abused.[0]
.. unless everything is absolutely transparent including microcode and hardware it is not acceptable as freedom respecting solution.[1]
then I've got unexpected opposition from the one who is making linux for M1 ( marcan_42). If even him fail to understand the consequences of accepting such hostage situation with Apple devices and claim "Freedom isn't the answer." [2]. If even he is ready to downgrade discussion to the personal disrespect toward people like me [3] who merely trying to point out the the danger of the hostage situation while go 'easy' on Apple and ready to justify all of their current mistakes then we have a serious problem. I do not wish to use the term "doomed" but probably we observe limited ability of highly technical minds to resist to the primitive brainwashing and manipulation the big companies provide by presenting it as a norm to trade 'freedom' for the 'safety' . Some people can't even think a few steps forward and understand that by helping companies to promote such agenda we'll end up with loosing both 'safety' and 'freedom'.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29658817
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29675597
"When Apple's servers go down you lose the ability to do low-level recovery on these machines anyway, since DFU flashing requires phoning home to get a ticket for your machine as well as low-level configuration data"
It really doesn't depend on the threat at all. It's about the model of the society you wish to have and what values you promote.
It's about who you wish to be responsible : the 'big company' caring about your safety and taking your freedom on the way or you caring yourself about own safety and preserving freedom on the way. I do not really think there is a choice here because the first option will always be abused at some point.
Freedom does matter and it comes with responsibility. THIS is the main issue here. THIS is what separates society with responsible citizens from the society with 'irresponsible people' who wish to trade their freedom for 'safety' resulting in loosing both (and democracy itself after some time).
It is not about trusting Apple or any other company for that matter. It is about tendency and attempt to make it a norm/legalize to sell personal computers without respecting right of the owner to have a full control over their own computer. If owner cannot fully control own computer this computer cannot be called 'personal' anymore.
This practice needs a push back as it completely unacceptable. It should be made illegal to sell such devices if that is not already the case because you can be left without working computer just because link to the company isn't available for some reason.
Company goes away and you are left without a working computer. Internet isn't available and you have brick instead of your computer. This is crazy and even more crazy that there are bunch of people brainwashed enough to the level that they do not even perceive it as a problem. Probably because they can't think 3 steps forward.
It doesn't matter how secure communication between Apple and Apple device because even if it's perfect the owner is not secured from the Apple itself and those who Apple would love to communicate with. For instance oppressive governments. (here the result of such communication: blocked app that oppresive government didn't like https://apps.apple.com/us/app/%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB...)