[-] Senal@programming.dev 3 points 3 weeks ago

The Luddite's?

[-] Senal@programming.dev 3 points 5 months ago

See, now that's a more thorough explanation of your position.

I disagree with pretty much all of your assertions (though the witch hunt stuff can be true sometimes) , but at least i know I'm disagreeing with an opinion formed using the whole of the information provided.

This “context” added doesn’t move my post a centimeter IMO.

It shows you read the initial information in it's entirety and still came to the conclusion you did.

That removes the possibility of responses such as "Did you even read the initial tweet?".

Well... it should remove that possibility, in practice it just means you can safely ignore those responses because clearly the people making those responses haven't read your response in it's entirety.

[-] Senal@programming.dev 3 points 6 months ago

To be clear, i'm asking a very specific question about a very specific statement.

when you say :

So, yay for you! You got fat by stuffing your giant mouth in an attempt to fill the hole in your brain, and lost the weight. Congratulations. It still has nothing to do with the current state of understanding of human metabolism.

Are you claiming that basic CICO, which is peer reviewed science has "nothing to do with the current state of understanding of human metabolism."

or was that just poor phrasing ?

[-] Senal@programming.dev 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

In a system where inherent racism didn't exist that would work, are you assuming that the current system wouldn't disproportionately skew the beneficiaries to the existing racial bias for some reason ?

That just gives you the same problem, a step down in the chain.

Systemic racism doesn't start once you hit a threshold of income, targeting the poor will still skew towards whatever biases exist in the system.

disproportionately benefit African-Americans

Either you don't understand why African-Americans would need additional help or you are framing it that way on purpose.

By what metric are you getting "disproportionate" ?

continuing to perpetuate the idea that skin colour is somehow the most important thing about people

It sounds like systemic racism is over so we can all just go back to seeing everyone as equals. /s

Again, either you have a fundamental misunderstanding or are purposely framing it that way.

To be clear, these measures aren't "skin color is most important so let's base policy on that aspect"

they are closer to

"The system is actively using skin colour and ethnicity to detrimentally target people who should really be equal in standing, let's not pretend that that isn't happening and try to address it"

[-] Senal@programming.dev 3 points 10 months ago

That is a good question, I know where the button is for the website (it's in the sidebar, in my UI it's green) but the app im using doesn't have an obvious button

[-] Senal@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago

Do you have any information on how easy the resumption of puberty is after that sort of delay?

It never occurred to me that this was possible and I'm interested in how it might work.

[-] Senal@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I mean, yes? That's a good summation.

The part where you get to call something "open source" by OSI standards (which I'm pretty sure is the accepted standard set) but only if you adhere to those standards.

Don't want to adhere, no problem, but nobody who does accept that standard will agree with you if you try and assign that label to something that doesn't adhere, because that's how commonly accepted standards work, socially.

Want to make an "open source 2 : electric boogaloo" licence , still no problem.

Want to try and get the existing open source standards changed, still good, difficult, but doable.

Relevant to this discussion, trying to convince people that someone claiming something doesn't adhere to the current, socially accepted open source standards, when anybody can go look those standards up and check, is the longest of shots.

To address the bible example, plenty of variations exist, with smaller or larger deviations from each other, and they each have their own set of believers, some are even compatible with each other.

Much like the "true" ^1^ open source licences and the other, "closely related, but not quite legit" ^2^ variations.

^1^ As defined by the existing, community accepted standards set forth by the OSI

^2^ Any other set of standards that isn't compatible with ^1^

edit: clarified that last sentence, it was borderline unparseable

[-] Senal@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You’re never going to get an honest answer to this question,

The honest answer was in the post they were originally replying to.

I will never tolerate ads. I will give up YouTube before I watch ads.

Youtube isn't an existential need.

Ad's or bust isn't a real dichotomy.

Here's another honest suggestion, drop ~~free~~ ad supported Youtube as a product and go full premium.

It'd significantly reduce infrastructure costs and they'd be able to fund it with subscription monies.

edit: used the wrong quote at the start

[-] Senal@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Here is one example

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, adopted during the French Revolution in 1789, specifically affirmed freedom of speech as an inalienable right.[6] Adopted in 1791, freedom of speech is a feature of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

I mean you can just find in page for "United States"


Also , not american (a good example of an actual fact) and i very specifically ruled out the typical american interpretation of freedom of speech.

The fact that i was asking you what interpretation you were using implies i recognise more than just one, so even if i were american (again, not american) the question would still stand.

I also , very specifically asked what interpretation you were using for your argument, but it seems we've skipped over the questions entirely and gone straight to factually incorrect personal attacks.

I'll just assume you don't have an answer to the actual question given no attempt was made to actually answer it, or perhaps you think your position is unassailable and an answer is beneath you.

Regardless, good luck with fact pointing i suppose.

edit: added answer to your question

[-] Senal@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago

Second, at least here in Germany Telegram has become the main platform for conspiracy nuts and antidemocratic organizations. Someone who is “very active” on Telegram is most certainly an idiot.

Bet the majority of them drive cars as well.

[-] Senal@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago

If you’re using windows you’re already giving Microsoft data so may as well

While technically correct, to me this sounds like "You haven't managed to stop some of the tracking, why not just give them everything?" which is personally not my approach.

Not to say that my approach isn't effort and is even effective, but I'd much rather limit the damage in the ways i can rather than give up entirely. I can see why someone wouldn't want to put in that kind of effort though and i don't fault them for it.

Edge uses chromium not chrome, I would hazard a guess there’s much less data harvesting going on in base chromium given it’s open source and people can see exactly what they collect

Open source yes, but not necessarily free from data-harvesting.

The fact that un-googled chromium (and others like it) exist implies that straight up chromium being open source isn't a guarantee they aren't doing consumer-hostile shit anyway.

Though, yes, it's almost certainly less than full-fat chrome.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

Senal

joined 2 years ago