133arc585

133arc585 , 11 months ago (edited 11 months ago)

Yikes. They seem to really be in trouble with how many Nazis they’re allowing to hold power. Economy Minister resigned because he’s a Nazi. Finance Minister is at least a horrific racist but likely also a Nazi. I wonder if it’s just a return to the good old days of Finland allying with Nazis and helping Nazis murder Jews.

Finland’s ‘most rightwing government ever’ to cut spending and immigration

Despite being officially “banned” in Finland, the Neo-Nazi Nordic Resistance Movement[^1] seems to be only one-step removed here: both of these Ministers are part of the right-wing “Finns Party” which has direct ties to the Nordic Resistance Movement.

Edit: I said Prime Minister when I meant Economy Minister.

[^1]: Which, rather creepily, has ties to the terrorist Neo-Nazi Azov Batallion that Ukraine has no problems supporting

133arc585 , 11 months ago

I was simply quoting the Wikipedia page.

133arc585 , 11 months ago

No you’re right that was an honest mistake. I misremembered Economy Minister as Prime Minister.

133arc585 , 11 months ago

In WW2 Finland hid Jewish people from the Nazis and the alliance was probably a mandatory evil after not getting support against the other fascists coming over the over

Is that so?

Authorities in the Scandinavian nation revealed the findings Friday in a 248-page government-commissioned independent report, which showed that 1,408 Finnish volunteers — many between the ages of 17 and 20 — served with the SS Panzer Division Wiking from 1941 to 1943.

…

After losing several territories to a Soviet invasion in 1939, Finland entered a deal with Nazi Germany for material support against Moscow. But the agreement also required the Nordic country provide some 400 volunteers for the SS Wiking division — a pact it reluctantly honored, the report concluded.

I’ll say this: if part of the requirement of “getting support against the other fascists coming over” is to supply volunteers to kill Jews, it’s not excusable in the least. It’s completely unacceptable.

133arc585 , 11 months ago

No, the one I already linked.

133arc585 , 11 months ago

It’s very probable that war crimes did happen as they happen with every country in a war.

So many weasel words. It’s not just “very probable”, Finland’s own government published and stands by a multi-hundred page report documented how it did happen. Also, not every country was offering up volunteers to help murder Jews, so don’t make this “all sides” junk claim.

Also, you glossed over the key point I made: if the cost to get protection from what you perceive as an invading threat is to offer up volunteers to kill Jews, you are completely in the wrong for accepting that protection. That is not a fair trade-off to make.

133arc585 , 11 months ago

The weaseliness comes from the fact that you took what definitely did happen and phrased it as “probably happened”. You also took what one country definitely did, and tacked on a “well most countries were doing bad things” immediately after. That’s what is bothering me. It’s the whole “well it might not have happened, and if it did, they weren’t the only ones, and even if they were, it was a necessary evil” goalpost shifting.

I’m very opposed to the world war alliance but understand the shitty circumstances

By “understand the shitty circumstances” you’re seemingly saying that it made sense to make the alliance. But you’re, once again, ignoring my point: if the cost of that alliance is that you must provide volunteers to kill Jews, you are in the wrong.

And I do see the agenda you’re set on.

Please, enlighten me. The only agenda I have here is to call out the minimizing of Nazi-collaboration that happened, including the murder of Jews, as some sort of “necessary evil” alliance.

133arc585 , 11 months ago

Fair enough, I see that it wasn’t mentioned in those 3 sources. Either way, they’re still Neo-Nazi. And in my personal opinion, that makes them terrorists, but I can understand if you don’t want to use the word terrorist. So just call them: Neo-Nazis. That doesn’t make them any less deserving of derision.

133arc585 , 11 months ago

Absolutely disgusting. Any facade of justice in the USA is just that, a facade.

Inmates in the US can have their sentences reduced for good conduct, including completing job assignments, following orders, and completing substance abuse programs and other rehabilitation courses

She’s been in a bit over a month. 42 days.

133arc585 , 11 months ago

It’s literally on par with sentencing guidelines for everyone else.

But it’s not. It’s on par with treatment for other people like her. It’s not the case for the vast majority of prisoners in the USA.

The real annoying thing is that this kind of crime should be higher on the sentencing guidelines because the victims are far reaching.

If your argument is that the sentence should be longer than the one given, how do you also say that you have no issue with it being shortened? Those are opposites.

why you think that the reduction itself is a bad thing

In general, I’m not. But I’m extremely against unfair application of the reduction to people like her, leaving others to suffer needlessly.

133arc585 , 11 months ago

It is indeed surprising, but it’s just words. He’ll say this, then continue sending financial and military support. Nothing will come of this.

133arc585 , 11 months ago

Anyone have a non-paywalled version? It would be nice if you would post the entire article contents as post body if you’re going to post paywalled sources, @HowRu68.

133arc585 , 11 months ago

Huh. I’m getting a ERR_SSL_VERSION_OR_CIPHER_MISMATCH error on that link. I was getting the same error when I tried to do it myself with archive.is (archive.ph is down and I get a cloudflare page).

133arc585 , 11 months ago

That doesn’t seem like an accurate statement at all. The methodology they used looks like it could be applied to any country that has public its analgous National Probate Registry. I’m not going to bother to check, but I’d be surprised if Ukraine didn’t also have this. So in theory, the exact same analysis could be used on Ukraine.

133arc585 , 11 months ago

Do you have any sources for these estimates?

133arc585 , 11 months ago

The methodology used here is specifically tied to Russia and cannot be used on Ukraine.

You said it’s specific to Russia and cannot be used on Ukraine. It is not specific to Russia, and whether it could be used on Ukraine or not is, as you now say, dependent on data accessibility. I was pointing out that your original comment was not accurate.

133arc585 , 11 months ago

Why not? If the phone is physically still functional, and receives software updates, why does it matter if its 7 years old?

133arc585 , 11 months ago

better cameras, larger displays, better battery life

Gotcha, that’s exactly what I was asking. I can see how that could matter to some.

133arc585 , 11 months ago

Oh it’s absolutely understandable why a good camera (and subsequently a good screen to view pictures on) would matter to some.

It just doesn’t to me, at all, and so it’s not even the first thing that comes to mind when I think about a phone. I don’t like tablet-sized phones because I don’t use it all that much and when I do, there’s no added benefit of a larger screen over a middle-sized screen. I don’t use the camera at all, and so its quality doesn’t matter to me. I don’t use a stylus because I’d rather use a pen and notepad.

I’m not criticizing someone wanting those features, I just sometimes need to be told what features are important to other people.

133arc585 , 11 months ago

If they use them purely on open battlefields then it’s not such an issue.

What is an “open battlefield” during a war is no longer a battlefield after the war is over. After the war is over, if you’ve littered what used to be a battlefield with unexploded bombs, you’ve ruined that area of land and made it extremely dangerous to civilians.

133arc585 , 11 months ago

Purchasing power parity

133arc585 , 11 months ago

From what I’ve seen, when they say “pushing it down your throat” what they really mean is “existing while gay”. If it isn’t hidden, it’s apparently being “pushed down your throat”.

Also, in the real world, people saying how “awesome it is to be trans lgbtq” are saying how awesome it is to be yourself as someone who is lgbtq. They aren’t saying it’s awesome compared to not being lgbtq (though one could argue there is value in having different-than-the-majority life experiences). It’s just another way to imply that lgbtq people are actively trying to “convert” people to being lgbtq.

133arc585 , 11 months ago

I can’t speak to phrenology per se, but phrenology’s modern analogue is, in my opinion, the “genetics” argument. Whereas phrenology was some attempt to “explain” how the apparent shape was indicative of underlying brain structure, contemporary “scientific” racists will use genetic differences to “explain” whatever behavior they want to attribute to it.

133arc585 , 11 months ago

Liberalism in the USA is a right-wing ideology.

133arc585 , 11 months ago

If I were an advertiser I wouldn’t want to associate with Leo Laporte, to be frank. I think he has been lucky to get advertisers largely because of his radio days; if he hadn’t had those ties to start with, I don’t think he’d have gotten very far.

133arc585 , 11 months ago (edited 11 months ago)

He cheated on his wife with his producer, Lisa, who I think he later went on to marry after leaving his wife.

He showed sexually explicit texts between Lisa and himself on air, not just once, but twice. If that wasn’t enough, he also showed his penis on air in much the same way.

He’s made racist comments on air, including saying “they all look alike” in reference to black people, and saying blacks and hispanics are responsible for all crime.

He’s abusive to his employees, such as when he said “Fuck you you’re dead to me” and threatened to punch Brian Brushwood in the face, after (show hosts) Brian and Justin Robert Young were banned from TWiT with no public reason provided. They didn’t badmouth Leo or TWiT, not that that would excuse that behavior anyway. He seemingly can’t control his anger, even on air, and verbally attacks his engineers for any mistake they make. He also is no stranger to attacking his guests/co-hosts on air.

Sarah Lane, co-host of one of (if not the) biggest shows on the network at the time, spoke about workplace sexual harassment (it might be worse than it looks). His interview with Cali Lewis is rather uncomfortable to watch; there is a tasteful and appropriate way to have the conversation, and then there’s the creepiness with which he approached it. Not to mention how inappropriate it was in the context to really have the conversation at all.

Not that I’m generally a fan of this sort of website, but there’s a website devoted to documented Leo’s disgusting actions. If you can get past the editorializing, it is still useful to document things that actually happened. You can ignore the editorialising entirely and just watch the video clips they uploaded if that suits you.

Overall, my opinion of the man is:

• He has absolutely no sense of appropriate behavior in a given context. Some actions are acceptable (calling out your engineers for repeat mistakes) but not in all contexts (on air); likewise for attacking guests.
• He is a sexual pervert who can’t put in the required effort to keep his professional and sex life adequately separate.
• As an employer, he doesn’t treat his employees with respect. That’s not to mention workplace sexual harassment.
• He only got as far as he did because he had a massive advantage of having his previous TV shows and radio shows–this is how he got most of his early advertisers (most of whom stuck with the network).

133arc585 , 11 months ago

TWiT only has any value because of the rest of the employees: the engineers, the co-hosts, and everyone else that puts it all together. Leo is not what makes the network have value (though of course he was at its founding). I think the network would be better off without him now. I too used to watch since the network started and was there for some of it live, and eventually it got to the point where I couldn’t watch any show with him in it (which sucks because I happened to like SN a lot, among others).

the characterization of some of these events is a bit misleading

If you mean the editorializing from that drama website, then I’d agree that it has a very clear bias. That doesn’t discount what I really wanted to stress though: the video clips and screenshots, which are primary evidence that themselves are not editorialising, very clearly show a pattern of problematic behavior. There is no excusing a lot of what I linked to in my previous comment.

I think he has his faults and they sometimes interfere with my enjoyment of the podcasts but if he was a truly horrible person, I don’t think many of the people I respect in the tech space would associate with him offline. “A man is known by the company he keeps” often rings true to me but it has also steered me wrong at times.

I’m curious who you have in mind here. But I’ll say that people have various reasons for associating with others, even if they’re not great people. Money, opportunities/connections/contacts, convenience, etc are all reasons that sometimes make people spend time with bad people.

All I really care about is good insightful content about the things that matter to me and (fortunately/unfortunately depending on your pov) twit is one of the few places to get the kind of long form discussion that I like.

The long-form discussion is not solely enabled by Leo; it would happen just as well without him. In fact, in many situations, it would probably happen better without him. I’m not saying for a moment the network doesn’t have value or produce some quality content. My point was, and is, that Leo is a rather nasty person and that if I were an advertiser I would not want to be associated with him.

133arc585 , 11 months ago

So what is he then? If he acts like those things, repeatedly, why is he not those things? Is he doing them for show?

133arc585 , 11 months ago

So the fact that you didn’t answer that but just skirted it and decided the conversation is over is rather telling. How do you justify his behavior? How do you claim that he isn’t racist? How do you claim he doesn’t have a lack of self-control and anger restraint? I’m genuinely curious how you can see what he does and think that there’s a disconnect where repeated bad actions don’t reflect poorly on the person doing them.

133arc585 , 11 months ago (edited 11 months ago)

It’s definitely not the case that it’s useless. A MITM can embed malware into the page it returns if you aren’t being served over HTTPS. It’s not just about snooping on sensitive data going one or both ways, it’s about being sure that what you’re receiving is from who you actually think you’re receiving it from.

(Edit to add:) I actually went to look at some of the rest of the site and it confirms what I suspected: not using HTTPS here puts the reader at risk. Because this website provides code snippets and command line snippets that the user is to run, by not presenting it over HTTPS, it becomes susceptible to malicious MITM editing of the content.

For example, this line on the site:

2. Install Homebrew (ruby -e “$(curl -fsSL raw.github.com/Homebrew/homebrew/go/install)”)

Could be intercepted, since it’s not being served HTTPS, and be replaced with utf-8 lookalike characters that really downloads and runs a malicious ruby script! Even easier, perhaps, they could just insert an item into the bulleted list that has the user run a malicious command.

HTTPS is not just for security of personal or private information. It is also for verifiable authenticity and security in contexts like this.

133arc585 , 11 months ago

Indeed. See my edit on the parent comment–I noticed that the website provides commands to the user to run, which makes it ripe for MITM attacks: if the user is copying-and-pasting commands to run into their shell, those need to be served over HTTPS.

133arc585 , 11 months ago

Because a file manager app asking for Full Disk Access is not suspicious, and Full Disk Access is one hell of a good way to get access to data to exfiltrate. There likely wouldn’t even be suspicion if it also asked for Internet access: if it supports connecting to network shares, you wouldn’t think twice about it having that permission.

133arc585 , 11 months ago

Russia will kill half of them anyway after the war.

Why? What sense does that make? When has there ever been any reason to believe that the goal is to kill Ukranians? This isn’t even the first time I’ve seen it said that if Russia wins (or even loses!) they’ll just wipe out all Ukranians afterwards. And neither time has there been any reasoning for why such an absurd claim should be believed.

If you truly believe this drivel, you’re doing everyone a disservice by not attempting to justify your claims. If you truly believe it and provide justification, you might just convince others to believe what you do.

133arc585 , 11 months ago

What are these numbers? Lives lost? Bombs dropped?

133arc585 , 11 months ago

In the USA there’s due process required for authorities to gain access to your private data

This is only the case when the data is being obtained by traditional means. As we’ve seen recently, authorities buying data from data brokers completely circumvents any sense of due process on a technicality.

Yeah, always invoke your right to remain silent. […] It baffles me how criminals will sit there and let police interrogate them until they confess. Maybe it’s because they think they can talk their way out of it, but then why confess.

Oh absolutely. Even if you are entirely innocent, the police use psycological manipulation as routine part of interrogation. They’d sometimes rather you get confused as to whether you actually may have done something wrong, and eventually admit to something you didn’t do, than to let you go as innocent. There is absolutely nothing good that can come out of “cooperating” (such a loaded and innacurate word in this context), whether you’re innocent or guilty.

133arc585 , 11 months ago

You realize localized weather is not always predictable far enough in advance to do much? Moreover, airlines don’t require passengers specify their weight when they purchase a ticket, so they can’t really plan ahead for going over a specific weight that is itself tied to local weather conditions. Mind you, this could be avoided by building in more wiggle-room, but that is not going to be accepted as a solution because it results in waste much of the time if, for example, you have empty seats because you wanted to be sure that you wouldn’t run in to the issue of going over weight.

133arc585 , 11 months ago

I get what you’re saying, but it’s not just monetary efficiency that I meant there. It’s fuel/emissions efficiency that would suffer as well. And that should be of concern to everyone.

133arc585 , 11 months ago

You’re right, the transatlantic train should be good enough for anyone. Who needs planes when a train gets you across the ocean with much less pollution!

No need to be aggressive mate. Your replies are rather antagonistic.

133arc585 , 11 months ago

We’re giving them our older model stuff from the 90s. Compare that to the mothballed museum pieces Russia is rolling out.

Think about this for a moment. The USA is using its older stuff first.

You look at what Russia is using and you think it’s old or not as advanced. Why aren’t you making the logical conclusion (which is backed by evidence if you look) that Russia is doing the exact same thing as the USA?

Why is the USA’s use of old weaponry simply that–use of old weaponry–but Russia’s use of old weaponry is…something else? Corruption? Incompetence? Whatever other excuse you want to come up with?

It’s safe to assume that Russia knows that the USA and other countries are going to send older reserves of weapons first. So it’s not unreasonable for Russia to not use more than is necessary and bring in their newest and best weaponry.

133arc585 , 11 months ago

Yes you can. Goodreads has export instructions. On BookWyrm you upload the export file. It maintains ratings, shelves, read status/dates, etc.

Just be careful when you import: some of my titles were matched to completely wrong titles. For example, “The Color Purple” was matched to some other random book with the word Purple in the title. Fortunately, as part of the import process:

• it tells you which books it could not reasonably match and lets you manually match them, and
• it lets you edit any matches it made automatically.

Every book I had in Goodreads was available to add to my shelves on BookWyrm, even if they didn’t all happen automatically. Overall though, compared to how many books I had on shelves, only a handful were not handled automatically/properly.

133arc585 , 11 months ago

“Unsweetened” is a subclass of “no sugar added” though, and so if you’re really looking for “unsweetened”, you still have to read the labels of all of the “no sugar added” products that chose that (more generic) label over the (more specific) “unsweetened” label.

133arc585 , 11 months ago

Lead was used way past discovering it was dangerous, and is still used enough to cause problems in specific populations. Just like cigarettes. If there is a large moneymaking industry and it suddenly comes to light that what it is producing is dangerous, they have a lot of motivation to put money behind keeping that knowledge from getting out or, when it does, keep it from affecting law. They lobby/bribe, they abuse the legal system, whatever they can to avoid going under. As such, it’s not safe to assume that something is not dangerous simply because it hasn’t been banned.

133arc585 , 11 months ago

I see what you’re saying. I think I said this in another comment, but my goal is just to avoid (overly-)sweet foods. From that standpoint, “unsweetened” is ideal. But “no sugar added” for something that’s naturally somewhat sweet (such as tomato paste) is also acceptable. If I were to pick up tomato paste that said “no sugar added” but did have artificial sweeteners, I’d be horrified. So I guess the terminology is more straightforward if you’re avoiding sugar, but it’s less useful if you’re avoiding sweetness.

133arc585 , 11 months ago

Do you drink hot coffee or tea or soup? Cause hot beverages are considered more likely to cause cancer than this designation for aspartame. Do you eat meat? Cause that’s two levels higher than this designation for aspartame.

Sure, these things on their own, at the amount they’re generally consumed, may not cause issues. But when you are combining these things, the sum total can be worrisome. Maybe red meat alone isn’t much; maybe hot coffee alone isn’t much; maybe aspartame alone isn’t much; maybe alcohol alone isn’t much. But when you have hot coffee for breakfast, red meat for 2 meals, aspartame drinks all day, and alcohol at night, you are at a completely different level of risk. Knowing which small things contribute to this sum is important. Or, from another angle: maybe someone really likes alcohol, even acknowledging the potential cancer-causing aspect. So to somewhat offset that known risk, they’re wanting to minimize other sources of potential-cancer.

133arc585 , 11 months ago

Almost anything can be carcinogenic with a high enough exposure. You can pump a rat full of water until it dies and declare that water kills people.

It would lead to death, but not to cancer. Not everything is carcinogenic, even with high exposure. Causing death by a method other than cancer doesn’t make it carcinogenic.

133arc585 , 11 months ago

Table salt has more chlorine by mass than sucralose. Moreover, in your body, table salt dissociates into a chlorine ion, whereas in sucralose it’s covalently bonded into the molecular structure. That’s not to say that it is suddenly nonreactive, but being covalently bonded tempers some of it’s electron craving, so to speak. By your logic, table salt should be orders of magnitude more dangerous than sucralose (it’s not).

Edit to add: Do you know of any mechanism by which sucralose could cross the nuclear membrane? If not, sucralose isn’t going to be touching DNA at all. It could touch some form of RNA in the cytoplasm, which isn’t necessarily innocent, but it’s not going to be touching the DNA. That means it won’t cause long-term genetic changes or damage; any damage it caused would be transitory to the working set of RNA and that damage would be gone when that RNA was processed/destroyed.