yosamino

Look, I was trying to understand why the op believed the points that they made were not "pro surveillance-state", that doesn't align with what you are interested in reading here, but that's not really my job.

> You implied

I think you are implying that I implied.

Best to end this here, probably.

But I do believe them. It's just that they points that they sincerely ( I did not doubt that) made are part of the same set of points that are made in favor of a surveillance state - there is a contradiction here. Instead of assuming, I asked a question.

Quite literally this:

> attempt to understand how they could come to believe those things.

Is it possible that you are not reading my comment charitably ?

I did and then I asked a serious question.

These are arguments that are put forward in favor of mass-surveillance.

That is in direct contradiction to the claim "I’m not trying to be pro-surveillance state or whatever".

So I was wondering how that contradiction comes about and asked about it.

What would you suggest the charitable reading should be ?

> Look, I’m not trying to be pro-surveillance state or whatever, but

... but why do you then go on making all pro-surveillance state arguments ?

> spend your energy on something with a better chance of success.

but what ?

Bit of a Radio Yerevan Situation. Not even the various emergency broadcast app reliably get timely push notifications.

The thing about these notifications seem to be that apps that regularily get notifications from the the app get them reliably.

This is based on the observation that xmpp-contacts I'm in regular contact with seem to get notifications quickly and contacts I talk to less regularily not so much.

Sadly this dependent on apples whims

The current state of affairs is that cloudflare is that huge organization that arbitrarily censors websites without a mechanism for appeal or legal process.

Cloudflare actively removes your ability to decide for yourself which websites and systems you want to connect to by obscuring their sources.

Without Cloudflare I could decide for myself that I want to block certain networks to connect to my networks.

Cloudflare hiding the origin of these networks along with it's size in the market make Cloudflare exactly that huge organization.

This is a flawed analogy. The "keyboard manufacturer" in this scenario is the "router manufacturer" who Cloudflare buys off of, not Cloudflare.

In your scenario Cloudflare is more like a newspaper aggregator which carries all sort filth along with it's normal commentary.

If this was a normal situation one could just decide not to read some filthy newspapers, while letting those who want to read it make that decision for themselves.

But in the Cloudflare scenario all the major relevant normal newspapers decided to publish all their content through Cloudflare and if something objectionable is published along with it, instead of taking your beef to the original publisher, you have to to take it up with Cloudflare who might just forward your details to some very unsavory people without you having a chance to know beforehand.

Cloudflare enables this because their stance is that they are a neutral carrier who is not responsible for the data they carry. If I send an abuse report to github for content on their system, there is a chance that I will be annoyed by how they handle it.

Cloudflare's core thing OTOH is to hide who I could be sending an abuse report to,

Possibly they will forward it ( more likely not) , but they will include my personal information in a report to an entity that is unknown to me, who are likely criminals, exposing me to danger.

That's not a "weird belief". Cloudflare positions itself as "infrastructure". That means they think they are not responsible for the content that they carry.

In a normal scenario, if you want to protect your systems from other "bad" systems on the internet, you can block them on the IP layer.

But Cloudflare operates at the IP layer proxying data between you and good and bad (and everything in between) systems.

In a normal situation you could block and report a site that is run by the the mob, by either blocking them at the IP level or by contacting the abuse@ of the organization that is hosting the content.

Cloudflare is making it so that you can't do either. And if you send an abuse report to Cloudflare, you cannot be sure that they will not just forward your contact information directly to the entity that you are complaining about. They have changed their stance over the years to appear more responsible, but the fact remains:

If I want to send an abuse@ report to a system that is hidden behind Cloudflare I can not be sure that they won't just forward it without me knowing who they are forwarding it to.

The last time .de I remember .de had a major outage like this was 2010. I would cite some sources but... you know. That was a fun afternoon, though.

I am very happy that it doesn't happen more often.

> If so, why does it make sense that people can "generate" cash by proving some amount of work done?

Think of it this way: If you pay with physical cash, there are people somewhere who do the work of digging ore out of the ground, smelting it, shaping it into coins, cutting and printing paper and so on. All these people do that, because they get paid in the same currency that they themselves have minted.

It turns out that nobody has yet found a way to create a digital decentralized currency that that works without incorporating a similar concept of incentivizing the creation of currency.

Heh

> For privacy reasons we've made the planet shake a little bit

Thank you for the hint. We live in a very complex world...

That looks pretty cool - sorry to have a complaint immediately:

When opening the map on Firefox/Linux zooming to like a France-size view and then not doing anything, the view keeps scrolling up and down relatively slowly, but very annoyingly.

Zooming all the way out, it looks like the globe is jiggling back and forth ever so slightly, but continually.

I've recently seen this happen on another mapping application ( cannot remember which one) so it's probably in down the stack somewhere in a library you are using.

This isn't the issue that's at stake here though: The question is:

> Who is making the decision which code is allowed to run on my device?

The status quo is already that can make this decision yourself. There are other people who make different decisions from you.

The proposed change is trying to take this decision away from you and making google the arbiter of which code is allowed to run.

The core of this issue is the opposite of "publishing an app to a global scale ecosystem" - I want to publish an app that is useful for me and a very small circle of people, that is what's being taken away.

> Right up until someone else makes a better product.

Yes. A different seed supplier. My point isn't that it's morally wrong to make a better product. My point is that the way it's set up is that those who are in the position to make a better patented-product are in an unbalancedly better position towards the people who use the product to create something as fundamentally important as food.

> They elect to do that because the crop yields are significantly better and justify the cost.

That is correct. They are so much better ( and I am in awe of that technology) that outside of some niches (depending on the crop) as a farmer you cannot afford not to use them. But now your farmer-timeframe of a few years is up against a 20 year artificial monopoly in the form of a patent. And all your peers are facing the same situation. This isn't a situation where you can just decide to do whatever you want.

You suddenly find yourself dependent on a third party that knows your situation exactly and will try to extract the most amount of value from you - trying to capture your profit while keeping you healthy enough to keep being a customer.

This skews towards the seed supplier.

I worded it so carefully to not have an argument, just for illustration, but...

Yes, you are correct, and you are not contradicting me: This is a system that makes sense on the surface. It's economically superior to pay some more money to a seed supplier to get a better yield on my fields.

But this economic advantage is captured by the seed supplier after all farmers moved to this new system where you are no longer able to rely on the previous' harvest seeds. Once everyone is on the economically superior system, the seed supplier can start capturing more of the value that is created by farming.

The point here is that Monsanto creates a superior yield in a crop. All your farmer peers move to use it, and now you have to too or get priced out of the market.

hence: > skew towards concentrating money towards those who already live a comfortable life. > skew

The word "farmers" is doing some heavy lifting here - might be some multinational, might be a small family making a living.

The point is not that the market is pricing out inefficient farms, the point is that it turns a millennia old practice on it's head and using government force to enable monopolies to remove competition.

Farmers use it because their time horizon is 1-5 years, but the government monopoly on seeds is more like 20 years.

It's skewed.

Easy to disagree and argue with these points, but the original question was why there are people opposed to GMOs and while GMOs are not the only patented organisms they are the most obvious for people to have concerns over the economics

Apart from the health aspect, there is the thing were these GMOs are patented and the business model is one where farmers are not allowed to keep a portion of this years yield to use to seed for next year, but essentially get roped into a subscription model for the crops they plant.

Essentially turning

> You wouldn't download a car

into

> You wouldn't plant your seed for your crop.

Which is obviously absurd.

So while GM has enabled some pretty good things, it also comes with the same sort of intellectual property baggage that plagues many different areas of society, which on the face of it make some sense, but always seem to skew towards concentrating money towards those who already live a comfortable life, squeezing from those who have less to begin with.

They probably mean that when using SLAAC - I guess the easiest way to get ipv6 connectivity - there is no equivalent to the way you can update DNS the way it would work with DHCPv4 or DHCPv6.

You pointed out one way - justuse DHCPv6, but that looses some of nice SLAAC properties.

A different way is to run mdns and let the devices announce their own hostnames.local.

Different tradeoffs, but in practice not too difficult to get to work.

I guess one could even do both...

Thank you for sharing! I really enjoyed reading that and learned a something too.

Oh, cool! that's on my bucket list as well. I am still grappling with some concepts, though.

Do you have a writeup of your setup somewhere or can you recommend some learning materials ?

You know, I'm well aware of how an LLM works (partially. mostly anyway), but if you pulled in any layperson from the street and ask them to explain how it's possible that they can speak natural language commands into their phones and get a useful response as if they were talking to a human, you'd be hard pressed to get a more precise answer than along the lines

> It's something with to do with data, and I know it's not magic, but...

Maybe you were not familiar with the quote I was alluding to:

> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws

Calling advertisements "product tips" as if everybody is too stupid to understand what that means.

They created an amazing technology that oftentimes is indistinguishable from magic and then use it to deliver ads and - sorry about the tangent - kill people.

This really is the quote of the century:

> The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads

What a waste.

Sure, the easiest way out of your dilemma is to just declare everyone killed to not be a civilian, and define every enemy to be out of scope of any restraint.

By that metric there are never any dead civilians and no rules apply.

Kinda sounds as if you are looking for excuses to make these rules you yourself brought up not apply to any real situation.

I really, really wanted to avoid making fun of of your "gifted brain power".

Your argument is so lazy, I am starting to doubt your godlike intellect.

Are you trying to tell me that you believe that the Iranians were under the impression that this school was a secret that the United States did not know about ?

This the the school's website https://web.archive.org/web/20250912011638/https://shajaresc...

Do you believe that these military buildings were a secret that the Iranians thought the US and Israel don't know about ?

> (Legitimate) countries at war aren't trying to massacre civilians.

You think Israel is not a legitimate country? Cause that just very openly happened and continues to happen.

And maybe you think that killing civilians is not the point, which I don't agree with but I can at least understand why one would come to that conclusion.

But you must at least remember that the US is kind of famous for Hiroshima and Nagasaki - an action based almost in it's entirety on killing civilians.

But even if you want to only defend that "legitimate" countries aren't trying to massacre civilians, you must be able to see that the threshold of killing them if they just happen to be in the way is very low.

The Secretary of Defense of the US recently called for removal of all these rules you alluded to

> We also don't fight with stupid rules of engagement.

https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/4318...

Look at what is happening even with this lose framework you are referring to in place. Do you think if China invaded the US, the US would not do everything it takes to defeat them, even if it means giving up conventional warfare. You think the US forces would give up a strategic advantage that could be gained by taking off their uniform and continue fighting without it ?

I'm just gonna assume you are an American, just because this is a website who's audience is in large part American. But I might be wrong. Anyway, as such you must at least in passing be familiar with the concept of a "military base" as it is practiced by American society.

> Everything that the average family needs is there; a grocery store, shopping mall, bank, post office, theatre, religious centers, outdoor activities, community center, clubs, dining facilities, gas station, quick stop markets, and, if not a full size hospital, medical clinics. The majority of bases do not have schools physically located on the installation, but the children are educated in the neighboring school systems.

src: https://militarybases.com/military-housing/life-on-a-militar...

I just googled that so I don't have to write the text myself.

So while you might be technically correct about schools, do you think housing on a military base for personnel and their families is akin to playing on the road at night ?

> I feel like an intellectual god

HN rules prevent me from writing anything snarky here.

I am reading your comment and find the proposition interesting, but I can't quite understand the part about the STUN server - doesn't that "just" help me find my own public IP address ? Do you mean that I could then give out this address to others (instead of them having to do a DNS lookup) so they can connect to the webserver ?

You know, quoting from the idf website about their humane way of bombing, is a little bit like praising the IRA for calling in a bomb threat before exploding a bomb in a crowded place.

A double tap is the practice of bombing a location, waiting for people to help the humans who were injured and then kill those people as well.

Dropping a "loud but non-lethal bomb" and when humans gather on the location where you did that, responding by dropping a "loud but very lethal" bomb to kill all those humans is only on a technicality different from a "double tap" as explained above.

If your plan of (euphemism) "knocking" was to minimize human casualties, but when it turns out it increases human casulties and your only response to this is to shrug and say "at least I tried" - how sincere was your attempt at minimizing human casualties really in the first place ?

> Those are two opposing things.

I think you are stretching the definition of "oppising" furtherthan it can be stretched

> Yes, making false claims about Jews is antisemitic

No. Making false claims about Jews is just lying about Jews.

Antisemitism deals in lies, but the defining characteristic of antisemitism is not the lie itself, it's the use of the lie to cast out the Jewish people from the circle of humans to make them into an outsider and threat to humanity itself. The lie is just a tool and it depends on the kind of lie.

> that has no bearing on statements that aren't false.

your assertion here is that the statement in question

> [Hamas] does everything they can to get their own people killed to make you look bad

is true and not false.

What you are claiming it that Hamas is breaking a very fundamental rule of being human, in that they not only don't care about their own being killed but that they "do everything they can to get their own people killed."

Which is a standard propaganda tactic to assigning to you enemy the most depraved characteristics to convince your side that the enemy is not even really fully human.

It's a transparent and stupid tactic, and it begets hatred.