noctua

A few days ago there was a paper posted here about favicon cache being used for tracking [1]. I wonder if cache partitioning also prevents that?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25868742

The chats are encrypted and stored encrypted on the cloud, but they have access to the key. If they didn't have access to the key they couldn't allow some of the functionality that people want like being able to see the chats from different devices. Telegram has secret chats too which are e2e encrypted and don't store anything on the cloud.

If it's not anarchism then what would you call a completely stateless system that still has a similar free market economy to what we have today? As far as I know, Laissez-faire system still has a state. The group I know is mostly well-off and educated people, not some edgy 16yos. Maybe they've taken anarchism and given their own spin to it. I guess it doesn't really matter. I should have said the "anarchists" I know and some groups I've seen online support absolute free speech.

No, I've only heard of libertarianism in the context of America. The people I know call themselves anarchists. I don't have much knowledge about anarchism so I don't know if there's different flavors of it. Like I've heard of anarcho-communism which must be fundamentally quite different. Based on the conversations I've had with them, my own understanding was that the idea would be almost like Laissez-faire, but even more extreme since there's no government at all.

I don't support free speech myself, but I guess it would be that the whole premise is wrong. To think he's right you need to believe that certain speech leads to violence or hatred and that trying to suppress that speech prevents violence and hatred. And even if speech can lead to violence and hatred, some could argue that it's not enough to justify taking away someone's individual freedoms. Like how someone not being able to responsibly drink alcohol isn't a good justification to take away my right to drink it. If you commit violence because of intoxication, you'll get punished for the violence. But it's not a good reason to take away my right to drink alcohol.

As I replied to another comment, I'm not active on any anarchist servers, but I know many anarchists in real life. The notion I've gotten from them is that they support absolute free speech. Maybe they're an exception. Maybe it's an Eastern European thing. I don't know. I don't support absolute free speech myself. I just took issue with the statement that it's obvious that some speech needs to be censored, because I know some very educated intelligent people who disagree with it.

I'm not active on any online anarchist servers so I can't comment on that. But the anarchists I know in real life, at least based on the conversations we've had, support absolute free speech.

> the obvious problem which is that some speech shouldn't be tolerated... Especially intolerant or harmful speech.

Many people, both anarchists and non-anarchists, would strongly disagree with that statement. And not all of those people are uneducated edgelords whose main argument is that it's a slippery slope.

If I've understood it correctly, China isn't persecuting Muslims, but Uyghurs, and their main justification for it is the East Turkestan independence movement. There are plenty of Muslims in other parts of China living normal lives.

Is the chemical imbalance theory accepted by all the experts? I remember seeing an article that questioned it. It also pointed to a study which showed that a lot of the antidepressant effect can be attributed to just placebo. I personally don't know much about the subject though so I don't know what sources to trust.