wtdata

I know the article says they can connect using Tor. But by reading that paragraph, I couldn't be sure if that allows the distributed hosting to continue working properly, or if it just allows access but defeats the distributed hosting functionality.

Well, does the distributed hosting work with TOR?

What about with a VPN (like the free one included in Opera)?

Your point logically implies that you are against increasing life conditions of the people that are born poor in those countries with high birth rates.

> meaning you need to dedicate more land to agriculture

I don't understand why most people have this wrong idea. In a lot of places, the grazing pastures are naturally occurring, they aren't planted there.

It feels like people want to destroy the natural landscape of countries like Argentina, just because it's now fashionable to say they don't eat meat.

Even goats, everyone goes around claiming they have such an ineficient CO2/Kg meat index. Well, around here, goats are fed almost all the year by going into the forest and cleaning the shrubs and small vegetation there... besides feeding the goats for free, it also cleans the forest for free: something we would have to do otherwise in order to prevent fires in the summer.

Local agriculture won't feed 7 billion people and even worst went the method you are proposing is GMO, fertilizer and pesticide free.

Very well, but why don't these reports ever call for reducing the birthrate in countries where this is exploding [1]?

Now they are asking us to stop meat consumption, but the if number of people keeps increasing, what will they ask us to stop next instead of addressing the real problem?

Clearly the real issue is having too many people. Birth control is the proper way to tackle the problem.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d...

It is pointed out right at the beginning of the wikipedia article that the country was already in a state of civil war.

"By October 1862 Emperor Tewodros's position as ruler had become precarious: much of Ethiopia was in revolt against him, except for a small area stretching from Lake Tana east to his fortress at Magdala. "

> Talk about illiberal and fascist.

Or communist, as the article itself mentions.

My bad I misunderstood your answer to my first comment. I understood you were taking about the marketability of the produce, not of the means of production.

In any case, that is the reasoning of my second point when originally answering to you: A hypothetic situation where most people would own means of production, would still be capitalism when means of production are free to exchange hands.

That is too say: it's capitalism by definition as long as the means of production can exchange hands freely, it doesn't matter if they are all concentrated on the possession of a few or not.

> No, it wouldn't, because it is marketable ownership

I have to be sincere, I never saw this definition involving marketability anywhere, this is new for me. Perhaps it's really like you say, but that's not the definition I had, nor the one I see as the generally accepted one when checking up the definition of capitalism.

> For a version of your example, if everyone owned a fixed

But that is the thing, it isn't fixed. You are free to manage it, sell it, buy it, as you wish. That's why it's an hypothetical situation, where everyone would end up with a part voluntarily and not forced by the state.

> The idea that "Kurds"[0] are somehow more motivated or more trustworthy is literally just racist State-sponsored propaganda.

Kurds aren't a race. Giving special credit to a group of people because of their different culture (even agreeing with you that in this case it seems propaganda), is not necessarily racist.

> Capitalism describes a social organization where some people (the capitalists) own the means of production whereas most people are working for them.

This is not accurate. Capitalism describes a system where people are free to own means of production. A hypothetical system where everyone owns some means of production, would still be capitalism.

> Of course, i don't have any illusions about how democratic EU is, we just saw it how democratically EC president elected (through a closed auction).

The EC is elected by a voting by your elected representatives in the European Parliament. In a representative democracy (which is basically how it works every democratic nation in the planet) you are not supposed to vote for every decision taken, you vote for a representative and those representatives then pass resolutions observing a majority. This is why it is called a "representative democracy".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

> reactionary silence about the massive human rights violations in EU

Well, that the EU is engaging in a "massive human rights violations" is clearly a position held by the reactionary left, that is not shared by the majority of the population.

My comment you were responding to, had absolutely nothing to do with drones.

The comment was about perpetually blaming the EU/US for whatever bad happens in 3rd world countries.

> it's only sensible to your satisfaction and to the satisfaction of those who share the same right-wing values, but without hearing the argument of why this is a sensible policy i can assure you that it carries not the slightest conviction to the people of the left.

And since we all live in open, participative democracies here in the EU, you are absolutely free to elect left wing parties that defend your views, while the other people are free to elect right wing parties thet defend theirs. In the end, the position assumed in the EU, will be determined by the outcome of that democratic process.

What you are not entitled to do of course, is to impose the views of the minority of the population uppon the majority with the argument that the minority holds the "morally correct view".

Please explain how blaming Europe/US for all the problems non western countries face, is "empathy". Because it really looks like "ideology", not like "empathy".

This is the new version of Western Exceptionalism: Everything - bad - that happens in the world, is always fault of Europe or the US.

The people that live in those countries, the warlords they support, the wars they fight, the human atrocities they commit, their ethnically motivated conflicts, are never their fault, we are supposed to treat them as infants when it comes to all the shortcomings of their actions.

Saving someone that is about to drown, if directly faced with the situation, is clearly a moral (and probably legal) duty.

But I world argue, that supporting a solution to actively prevent someone from putting themselves in a situation where they can drown, is not a duty.

I.e.: I have the duty to help my neighbor if I see that she fell off the stairs and needs medical attention. But I don't have the duty to go check on her door every hour to see if everything is fine.

EDIT: Disagreeing with someone's comment because it goes against your political ideology, is not supposed to be a reason to down-vote a comment in HN.

Well, so far the US only designated China as a currency manipulator. No actual action followed about that designation.

My take is that is just a way to pressure China to accept other measures (like increased tariffs) for now.

>As I have tried to show repeatedly, multiple parties can be intolerant.

Re-read your original comments then:

"The pro-life position of forcing women to not have abortions is indeed intolerant of their rights."

"Forcing people to abort would be intolerant of life or religion, but that is not what abortionists do or are."

Now understand that abortionists are "intolerant of life" as the original GP stated, because they are intolerant of the children/fetus rights, not of the woman deciding not to abort (I think that is obvious to anyone... but here I am having to write it down).

Your all argument was that woman have those rights, but children/fetus don't, therefore forcing woman to conceive was against their rights, and, you concluded, intolerant.

I confronted you with realities where the children/fetus rights are higher than those of women (i.e. Alabama) and by your reasoning, that changes who is the intolerant one.

> The concept of intolerance is not any more "abstract" than "the concept of harm".

Harm is also an abstract concept of course, I don't understand where you want to go with that sentence.

You are going in a circular argument.

Your original words were: "The pro-life position of forcing women to not have abortions is indeed intolerant of their rights."

See, you equate "intolerance" with defending to violate someone "rights".

Obviously in place where the "rights" are different - i.e. Alabama - then it changes who is the intolerant one. In Alabama, according to your original comment, the intolerant are the pro choice ones: according to your reasoning, not to mine.

Of course that you could just accept the obvious, that the concept of intolerance is clearly abstract, and finish the discussion....

You are effectively arguing that, in Alabama, for instance, since 2 months ago, pro choice are the intolerant ones and pro life are the non intolerant. After all, the law there, says so according to your reasoning.

> A can stab B and B can stab C, that does not make the stabbings of B and C "abstract".

If A stabbing B is a crime and thereby - according to your reasoning - "intolerant", while B stabbing C is not a crime and therefore non "intolerant". Then the concept of "intolerance" is definitively an abstract.

I think you are missing the point.

The point is that you argue that pro life are intolerant because they don't respect woman rights.

Well, then, using your argument, in a society where unborn children have rights, the exact same thing can be said about pro abortion: they are intolerant because they don't respect children rights.

So, the all concept of intolerance, comes down to a specific set of laws a society observes, making the concept abstract.

Freedom of speech already existed when society at large was vastly less educated than today.

In the examples you have given, it all comes down to a particular society definition of whom has rights and whom doesn't.

Your argument is based on a specific society where law states unborn children have no rights. In a society where they would have them, your all argument becomes immediately invalid.

That goes on to validate the GP argument that "intolerance" is nothing but an abstract concept.

China has an autocratic regimen, it's difficult to gather what the population there truly thinks about US trade tariffs, when they all pretend they never even heard about Tianamen.

I am wondering what does this mean (if anything) to the huge amount of US public debt that China holds.

Capuccino has milk in it.

Ah, thank you! That was a very rookie mistake from my part then.

I have been willing to try Julia for a long time now.

Yesterday I finally put time aside to port some stuff I have been doing in Python to Julia.

1st: install Julia - used a snap on Ubuntu, fine

2nd: get jupyter to work with Julia: a bit complex, but achievable

3rd: install Julia support for vscode: Julia kernel keeps crashing in vscode

4th: Port a routine from Python to Julia: some nice language features, some scary: importing a package exposes all its functions to the all namespace - this seems quite awful! (EDIT: Thank you for pointing out that I should use `import` instead of `use`, in order not to put everything in the same namespace).

5th: Try to read a Parquet file - doesn't work because it was compressed with zstd (something all 3 libraries for parquet in Python support)

6th: realize that there is no package in Julia that even allows to write parquet files

Conclusion: maybe in a few years Julia will be my go-to language, but right now, it's too underdeveloped in order to be able to do real work with it.