There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Senal

@[email protected]

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

Senal ,

What if the life I’m imagining I’m protecting is one where I have the option of choosing a platform/application that isn’t scraping the absolute dregs of the barrel to squeeze out that last bit of profit margin.

That’s a win win right?

Senal ,

Depends on how you define ‘cost’ I suppose, but seems like the trade off isn’t worth it for you, which is fair.

Some might value the perceived benefits much higher than you do.

Senal ,

For me specifically, the setup and config oftentimes is what I’m doing with the computer, the learning and knowledge gained from the practice is what I’m after, which is good because it’s significantly less fun than it used to be.

Admittedly mine is probably a non-standard case and it ties in with other things in my life.

Condolences on your loss.

Senal ,

You mean cats? Are they not obligate carnivores?

Senal ,

Other than cat milk, possibly? I’ve honestly no idea.

But " just eat/drink plants " will kill a cat right?

Senal ,

I was genuinely asking because it wasn’t (and still isn’t) clear that that’s what they meant.

The dairy farm thing makes sense.

Senal ,

Also levels for fecal matter in most things that come from agriculture.

Milk is weird, I don’t disagree, but governmental regulations on levels of “safe contamination” isn’t a milk only thing.

Senal ,

Ah. OK. Thanks for clarifying

Senal ,

Brazil (1985)

Senal ,

The book is great as well, there is also a prequel book “The Boy On The Bridge”

Senal ,

So you’d be good with phrases such as “God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time” to be considered factually incorrect, as god(s) is/are a social construct?

Just to pre-empt, yes, money and borders are also social constructs but they also have physical manifestations, national identities are similar but not quite the same and all, including classification systems, have agency/effects through people’s shared belief in them.

Shared belief in god can have effects, but those effects wouldn’t make statements about a singular manifestation having independent agency to do something a correct statement.

“God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time”

vs

“Peoples belief in God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time”

Senal ,

Nope. I’d declare said statement propandistic shite unless they can prove they are privy to what God does or does not allow.

Most communication is propaganda to some degree, you’ll need to be more specific in the particular viewpoint you have here if you want a useful response.

Prove that god exists and i’ll immediately get on to finding out what they do or do not allow.

Just so we’re clear, faith isn’t proof, in fact its definition is almost universally “belief, in the absence of proof”

Lots of people believing also doesn’t equal more factually correct, it just means more people believe.

What do you think churches, mosques and temples are? “Non-physical”? Howzabout the Inquisition? Or Saudi Arabia’s “religious police?” Or the vast riches the Catholic Church has stolen over the centuries? I’d say no - they are pretty darn “physical.”

Correct, you have accurately described physical objects, not a single one of which i have denied the existence of.

If you could point out which one of those is the physical manifestation of a being that “would or would not allow” something then we can get on to the conversation part.

Just in case there’s any confusion, i’m all aboard the " organised religion is mostly bullshit people doing horrific things on a large scale over even longer time frames" train.

Note the “organised”, it’s important.

Also the “religions are just socially acceptable cults” train.

It might seem like I’m on two trains but in reality it’s a venn diagram in the shape of a train and it’s basically a complete overlap.

See the above.

The above wasn’t addressing any of the points so I’m not sure how it relates to this one either, but feel free to let me know.

I’m not exactly sure what you are trying to say here. I don’t see how ascribing magical powers to religious people changes the fundamental idiocy of the quote you used.

I genuinely think you are misunderstanding what was being said here, intentionally or otherwise.

Just in case it’s unintentional, I’ll try again, but with more describing.

The vs statement was used as an illustration of the difference between the description of a tangible manifestation of a being vs the description of actions of a groups of people with “belief” in a being.

One of those things is a “being”/manifestation performing an action, the other is a group performing actions due to a shared belief or “construct”.

Also the first “quote i used” was from the original post, the second was a comparative example, neither of which i was stating as fact, purely as a demonstrative example.

Senal ,

They could just be deeply confused about how a conversation generally works?

Senal ,

TL;DR;

Probably a troll, possibly just confused, either way uninteresting

See the end of the post for a reply bingo card.

Nope. The onus is not on me to prove that God exists as I’m not the one using God to substantiate claims. I hope this is not difficult to understand.

The difficult to understand part is where you are referencing things that didn’t happen.

Perhaps i’m misunderstanding though, so if you point out where i was using god as justification that should clear it up nicely.

No, you claimed that religion is, as social constructs go, somehow less real than all the other social constructs that are equally observable around us - do you need me to remind you?

Again, point at where this happened, if you keep referencing things without related references it’s going to seem like you are making things up.

At least here you provided a quote, though unrelated. it’s a step in the right direction.

Just in case you meant to use that quote, nothing in the “Just to pre-empt…” quote mentions relative "real"ness.

Atheists are always the first to purport themselves as (pardon the pun) God’s gift to “rational thinking”… yet their (supposed) “rational thinking” falls apart rather quickly under investigation.

No claim to more rationality than you, no claim to atheism either, citation please.

Not big on history, are you?

Vague and fallacious. especially given i was responding to this passage of yours :

Howzabout the Inquisition? Or Saudi Arabia’s “religious police?” Or the vast riches the Catholic Church has stolen over the centuries? I’d say no - they are pretty darn “physical.

You really are obsessed with God’s existence (or lack thereoff), aren’t you? I guess I had a hard time following because it’s not something I care about in any way whatsoever. It seems that this differentiates me from atheists, doesn’t it?

Again, no assertion of atheism on my part, feel free to quote the part where i did.

The only reference to the existence/non existence of a god is in relation to the original post i responded to , it’s not a point i added to the conversation.

But i suspect you know this.

This is my reply bingo card ( if you so choose to make one )

  • Bad faith arguments
  • References to things that didn’t happen, with either no actual reference or one that doesn’t relate to the “argument” being made
  • Fallacies in place of actual points
  • Personal attacks
  • Claims of my devout atheism, again with no references or proof
  • Complaints that i’m pointing out any of the above, but without substantive refutations
  • Equivalent of "I’m not arguing with someone who clearly doesn’t understand <Pseudo-point with no coherent supporting argument>"
  • lol
  • lmao
Senal ,

Damn, all but 2.

Nearly had me a bingo, oh well.

Senal , (edited )

I don’t know about the fairness of this particular company but by that rationale nothing can ever be fair, just by existing we increase the suffering. Its how the world is.

Think headphones jacks don’t cause suffering at some point in the chain?

Not that I’m disagreeing, just not sure how things would get named under this specific scheme.

Does it assume that it’s generally understood that everything is a little harmful in some way, so as long as you don’t claim otherwise, it’s cool or would everything need to be measured on some sort of average harmfulness scale and then include the rating in the title.

Like “Horrendously harmful Apple” or “Mildly harmful Colgate”

A bit hyperbolic perhaps.

Genuinely not trying to start a fight, actually interested in what you think would be a good way of doing this, as I’ve occasionally pondered it myself and never come up with a good answer.

Incidentally, this is one of the core plotlines to later seasons of “The good place”

Senal ,

That’s reasonable

Senal ,

Are you genuinely struggling to understand why people who think he’s actively saying hateful shit about trans people wouldn’t necessarily want to increase his presence in the general Zeitgeist?

Or did you just want to slip in the “stereotypical white guy” dog whistle?

If you are actually struggling, i can probably help.

imagine a person saying horrible shit about you, specifically.

Now imagine they have a platform where they say this hateful shit to lots of people, enough that you sometimes run across these people and they also say hateful shit to you, perhaps worse.

Now imagine an unrelated meme is made with this persons face on it and you see it 5,10,15 times a week.

Now imagine that the comments on most of these memes feature a whole bunch of people defending this person and agreeing with the hateful shit they said about you.

I’d imagine that’s why some people care.

Genuine question though, what would be the right thing to give the energy/importance to in this scenario?

Senal ,

it’s Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes

Senal ,

https://programming.dev/pictrs/image/a1480165-1ccf-44bd-b568-d7ea96fd2d01.png

Senal , (edited )

Describe what you mean by “freedom of speech” here, I’m assuming you don’t mean the first amendment because that only applies in the US and only for protection against congress ( the US congress ofc ).

Given the above I’m not sure what line you mean here, libel/slander?

You can only point out facts that exist, well, you can technically point out whatever you like and call it “fact” i suppose, but it’s not really accurate unless it’s an actual fact.

Unless accuracy isn’t what you were going for ?

In case you were wondering : dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fact

Senal ,

Did you mean to reply to me? Or the person above?

Senal ,

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”

https://programming.dev/pictrs/image/63220dcf-a799-4e95-96df-49185af5b566.png

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 ,

if someone pointing out that you are saying “fact” but aren’t meeting any of the definitions of a fact seems like an attack to you i suspect you’re probably having a bad time on the internet. Again you dodge most of the actual points of the conversation, probably intentionally.

Also i’m pretty sure “Fucking lmfao.” has a redundant “Fucking” in it , but I’m not holding my breath on you caring about that given how this has gone so far.

Doesn’t seem like this is going to go anywhere interesting, so I’ll just add you to the blocklist and be happy nothing of value(to me) was lost.

Senal ,

To me this reads as:

< preemptive justification for saying something controversial and/or indefensible >

< controversial statement with no justification or reasoning >

“Not going to explain because it’s obvious”

Probably not how it was intended, but that’s some weak sauce

Senal ,

ah, apologies, i wasn’t implying that your ‘source’ was weak, it was clear you were stating a personal opinion so no ‘source’ needed.

I was using a slang term : www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=weak+sauc…

I was implying your argument was weak, built on a shaky foundation of personal opinion stated as universal fact.

Senal ,

Unless you’re a big corp, then fuck with impunity but make sure to pay the “cost of doing business” tax.

If the tax is too high, just buy some lobbyists or political system equivalent.

Senal ,

“by a wide variety of men”

I imagine your ability to definitely determine parentage, i’m assuming through observation and research, got you moved to somewhere your observational talents could be better employed ?

No point in wasting that kind of talent on the streets fighting the statistically high percentage of 15 year old bodybuilding thugs and their mothers.

Senal ,

www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVhlJNJopOQ

Senal ,

I wouldn’t expect logical thinking to be a strong characteristic in someone who’d threaten kids over a videogame.

Senal ,

OK, so let’s assume that’s a good faith literal interpretation.

Let’s try it this way.

Yes, it possibly would be considered more logical, but people who threaten kids over videogames aren’t generally considered to be working with an abundance of logical thought.

I could however be wrong in this generalisation given I only have my experience to go on, if your experience leads you to believe people who threaten kids over videogames are not running with a logic deficit then your statement makes sense I suppose.

Senal ,

So, not a good faith take then, oh well.

“Logical” is not a binary position. It’s a spectrum.

Agreed, not sure how it’s relevant but it seems we agree on something after all.

Microsoft stole my Chrome tabs, and it wants yours, too (www.theverge.com)

Last week, I turned on my PC, installed a Windows update, and rebooted to find Microsoft Edge automatically open with the Chrome tabs I was working on before the update. I don’t use Microsoft Edge regularly, and I have Google Chrome set as my default browser. Bleary-eyed at 9AM, it took me a moment to realize that Microsoft...

Senal ,

I’m having trouble parsing this so i might be commenting on something that isn’t there.

Current edge is a chrome re-skin with some addons, I’d put good money on it not being google free.

If you care about data going to nefarious places you probably shouldn’t be using either.

Senal ,

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.

Senal ,

There shouldn’t be any of the Googled parts of Chrome in Edge, just as there aren’t any Googled parts of Chrome in stock Chromium.

There are at the very least googled parts of chromium in it though : github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium

Unless google have significantly changed the way they package and build chromium recently there are still google web service dependencies and i believe binary blobs (though they may have changed the closed source blob policy iirc)

Of course, you are now giving your data to Microsoft instead of Google, which isn’t really a win or a lose. If you’re not paying for the software, you’re either using FOSS, or the software is paid for by selling access to you and your computer.

Indeed

Senal ,

I don’t think there’s any data Microsoft can get through you using edge that they can’t also get just by controlling your OS

I’d put mid-level money on that not being true. There are a lot of things going on in a browser, a lot of which aren’t particularly easy to access from the outside.

Not to say it isn’t possible.

There are valid reasons to use windows and if you’ve gotta use it anyway they’ve already got your data from the start

To a degree yes, but assuming they aren’t pulling nefarious shit in the background, there are in theory many things you can turn off or somewhat neutralise using the options in the OS to reduce the level of data collection.

They are slowly removing those options but they still exist for now.

Again, i fully understand people not wanting to go to the trouble to achieve a goal they don’t care about, but that isn’t the same as there being nothing you can do if you wish to.

Senal ,

Isn’t the whole point of this article to point out that no, in fact, you won’t ?

Less volume perhaps, certainly less obvious, but not “without”.

Senal ,

To clarify , there is an aurora client for f-droid. gitlab.com/AuroraOSS/auroradroid

The OP mentions aurora store by name so they are probably not talking about the f-droid wrapper. Also if f-droid breaks rule 4 AuroraDroid almost certainly does.

Senal ,

i’d imagine a part of the problem is that at least some of them do in fact see those things as “traditional american values” so from their perspective they are conserving their version of reality.

Genuine question as i don’t actually know the answer, is conservatism considered to be the conservation specifically of “traditional” values. Like, is there an agreed upon timeframe in which these traditional values were held or is it more of a moving target sort of thing ?

Senal ,

The only “legal” thing you can do

Senal ,

Cost per GiB is higher and long term reliability is lower in most scenarios.

The failure scenarios for spinning rust tends to work better with large storage arrays as well.

Not all absolutes, but enough of them are true on a common enough basis that spending the extra on SSD’s isn’t usually worth it.

If you want some real in depth explanations there’s probably a datahoarder community somewhere or reddit if you are so inclined.

Senal ,

Goddammit, gonna lose me some internet points but it’s just too juicy.

“Pedant”

Senal ,

https://programming.dev/pictrs/image/2cfb4370-0f89-4673-a436-fe3fcf79a006.png

Lemmy.world Should Defederate with Threads

I think it’s pretty safe to say that the majority of us are here to avoid another corporate takeover of our preferred platforms. It would seem to me to be a tad irresponsible to allow Facebook into our space with open arms, allowing them to hoover up our data. I would love to keep using Lemmy.world, but will happily change...

Senal ,

And you’re free to do so, that’s the entire point of a decentralised system.

They aren’t making decision for anyone but themselves, again, as is the point.

If you don’t agree with whatever they do, find an instance you do agree with or start your own.

Staying or leaving has the same amount of personal agency.

Republicans Are Blurring the Faces of Capitol Rioters so They Won't Get Arrested (www.rollingstone.com)

House Speaker Mike Johnson has promised to release more than 44,000 hours of surveillance footage from Jan. 6 to the public, with one major caveat: The faces of some individuals who participated in the storming of the Capitol, a violent attempt to prevent the certification of Joe Biden’s election, will be blurred out....

Senal ,

you mean the faces that are already posted by the FBI for everyone to see ?

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •