mcantelon

>Imo, the bigger question is why Hungary, Poland, Spain, Greece, and Cyprus (all countries part of the recent EU Spyware Scandal) [1] continue to allow their Interior Ministries to attack the phones of both domestic and foreign opponents, and are abusing "Spyware for political gain" [2].

It's also a national security issue given that Israel may be piggybacking on the spying.

>web3 is a culmination of late capitalist grift, ironic meming, libertarianism and mansplaining, all resting on bad tech that is damaging the planet ... Proof of Stake is an alternative to validating transactions that doesn’t involve setting fire to the earth

The very first sentence of this piece is dishonest: blanketly condemning "all" related tech as environmentally devastating. Later on in the piece it's admitted that innovations like Proof of Stake solve the problem of needless energy consumption.

>To actually use this stuff is quite difficult, even the most simple thing, like buying something.

Yeah, scanning a QR code with your phone - as one needs to do to buy something online with a mobile wallet - is super hard. ;)

This article seems to be a cavalcade of shallow and dishonest criticism.

There's lot of edgy people on Twitter... lots of folks with hammers and sickles, ironic or otherwise, in their handles, despite the many documented atrocities committed by communist states.

Law of the jungle's where it's at.

Institutions earned their current distrust.

>If the code were an ATM pin code cracker, would that be any different?

No. Lots of pen testing stuff exists in the open source realm. A society that allows exploits to be "free speech" is anti-fragile.

Reports of shitty working conditions aren't exactly a new thing in Amazon warehouses.

>I got no doubt at this stage that the US will be hit the hardest from all the developed countries.

It's the biggest and most diverse so that's wouldn't be surprising, yes.

It's not "hypocritical" to address the fact that authoritarianism is a failure multiplier unless one is an advocate of authoritarianism.

>The Nazis won a plurality of the popular vote, so it’s not exactly a great distinguishing factor for Trump.

The distinguishing factor is that Trump's admin doesn't actually resemble a Nazi regime.

Perhaps mainstream conservatives would be cooler with this type of violent agitprop-masquerading-as-satire if it they weren't often called Nazis and physically attacked.

>Yes it's accurate, though the "Always Punch Nazis" controversy was just the tip of the iceberg

Wow pretty crazy that a company would expect employees to consistently enforce a reasonable part of the company's T.O.S.

Many tech workers have no idea how unbelievably spoiled they are.

Given historical experimentation by the military and intelligence agencies it seems pretty likely that this sort of research is happening.

>who clearly have not investigated any of the most obvious follow-up questions, such as “what is the probability of this occurring naturally?”

If it's true then the cause is an entirely different question.

The Twitter user seems legit. The Internet in general is full of BS yet we don't guilt-by-association the entire Internet.

Corporate media has done a lot to promote polarization (and even violence). Social media is making corporate media redundant to some degree, but those who run social media are also influenced by the same forces influencing corporate media. And, of course, "woke" ideology hasn't helped given it's similar in some ways to Maoism.

Until the cold war between globalism and nationalism finds some resolution this atmosphere will likely persist.

The severity has grown but the scale of the toxicity's grown in the "human flesh search engine" era.

Lots of people would move into other people's nicer homes if they could too, but the owners of the homes might take issue with that. Nations are a form of collective property.

What some call "American cultural imperialism" is what he/she is likely talking about.

Animals protect their territory. Fierce tribalism has long existed. I find the idea that people could just live anywhere, back in the day, to be hard to believe. In some places? Sure. In "the entire world"? Not so much. Spain was invaded by the Moors, back in the day, because someone opened the gates, from the inside, for them for example.

>i don't believe in borders and if you believe in the free market then you shouldn't either

"Free" doesn't necessarily mean unregulated or without limitations. If you want to scrap a norm as old as borders there's going to be a dazzling amount of fallout given that the people that built nations were led to believe that they were building collective homes for themselves rather than mere "markets" for global corporations.

Utopian optimism about Big Changes, like tech had in the early days (before the reality of mass surveillance, algorithmic perception manipulation, online mobs, etc. emerged) tends to be proven wrong.

If some small country wants to test open borders then great, but this idea that some Big Change will be so beneficial that we should push for its widespread implementation without testing is kinda nutty.

Characterizing someone as having a "traumatic and damaging" influence seems pretty positive.

Using an obituary to characterize someone's influence as "traumatic and damaging" is kind of extraordinary.

>we need to cut emissions by 15% annually

Such a Great Leap Forward isn't going to happen and even if it did it wouldn't reduce the rest of the world's emissions.

Geoengineering is likely the only way to cool the earth globally.

That's pretty crazy... if there's 133 convicted in that time span then the actual number of folks doing this might be considerably larger. This seems like a subject worth someone doing a documentary about given this is likely, if it's happening in Australia, happening in many other places.

Assuming "cause a brushfire" means intentional causing, rather than unintentional causing during commission of another arson, that's certainly an alarming trend. I live in a region of Canada that's had seasonal forest fires for as long as I remember and I don't recall any of them being intentionally set. Not good to see this emerge as a crime trend although I'm, in a way, not surprised given I've wondered for awhile why terrorists haven't been using forest fires as a tactic given the potentially low risk to mayhem ratio.

Care to quote that rather than linking to a largish PDF?

Are those stats on people deliberately setting forest fires, something much more serious than garden variety arson?

>What is increasing is the rate at which those acts become extensive bushfires

According to MSM 24 were charged with "deliberately lighting bushfires", not committing garden variety arson that metastasized into bushfires.

Forest fires have always been easy to start, if one wanted to, but people intentionally attempting to do so seems unusual.

>Arson has been stable for 24 months

Trends regarding arson in general may or may not correlate with a specific arson niche.

>is titled and written in such a way to provide ammunition to climate change deniers

Do you honestly think the BBC are climate change deniers?

Even when discussing something considered to be an emergency one shouldn't suppress truth and normalize deceit.