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.

Voroxpete

@[email protected]

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

Voroxpete ,

So is the US and Canada and the UK. Should I wish for those countries to be genocided too?

Voroxpete ,

Don’t be fooled by the “10th time”. There were 9 separate violations that were all brought as a single complaint last week. So technically one “time” (as in, one ruling), just regarding 9 separate tweets so technically nine separate incidents. Number ten here is basically Donnie’s second strike in terms of actual warnings. If he gets a third without repercussions, then I think it’ll be fair to say the judge may be bluffing.

Remember, judges have to play things a little softly if they don’t want to set up precedent for appeal. He can’t give Trump any reason to claim he’s being treated unfairly. Two warnings is perfectly reasonable.

Voroxpete ,

He’s not been warned ten times. It’s ten violations. The first nine happened as a block. So this is his second strike, in terms of how often he’s been reprimanded for this.

Voroxpete ,

It’s actually pretty likely to just be an afternoon, the first time around. Remember, this is a penalty for behaviour in court, not for the actual crimes he’s done. The point is to get him to stop acting like a little child. So yeah, odds are the judge books him for an afternoon, just so he can see how bad it is, then if he still keeps at it he starts getting week long stretches until he learns to stop attacking witnesses.

Voroxpete ,

It’s not a sentence. This is a penalty imposed by a judge for misbehaviour in a court room, not a sentence handed down for a crime.

And the judge has to give at least a couple of warnings (this is actually the 2nd, not the 10th; the first 9 violations were all assessed as a block) or else he risks the actual case getting thrown out on appeal.

Voroxpete ,

It’s 2 times. The first 9 violations were assessed as a block (it was 9 separate tweets). So this is only his second warning.

Given that the judge doesn’t want to get the case thrown out on appeal, two warnings is perfectly reasonable.

Voroxpete ,

It was one telling off, for 9 separate tweets that the judge was made aware of. So this is his second warning.

Voroxpete ,

Yeah, at the point where you’re resisting outside pressure your hull is basically just the plastic resin that the fibres are sealed in. Without that, the fibres are just a fabric bag.

Imagine if they’d said “We’re diving down to the Titanic in a submersible with a plastic resin hull.” Doesn’t sound so great.

Voroxpete ,

Did you actually read this? I don’t think you did. Either that or you’re being extremely dishonest right now.

Doctorow is briefly mentioned in passing in this blog post. His only involvement was a single tweet that in absolutely no way mentioned or even implied it was about Wu. Despite that she decided to make it about her anyway, and declared that Cory was leading some kind of witch hunt against her based on no evidence other than her own decision that she automatically counted as a “garbage person” in his mind. We have zero evidence that this was actually Cory’s intent, just her assertion that it must have been his meaning.

To take that and turn it into “he was involved in the media harassment and witch hunting of a famous Chinese tech girl Naomi Wu” isa disgustingly disingenuous twisting of the available facts.

It’s not impossible that Cory shares some blame in the events described - no one is perfect, every hero is some kind of bastard, yada yada - but the evidence you’ve offered doesn’t come remotely close to backing up the claims you’re making, and it’s dangerously irresponsible to share such a claim on such a flimsy basis.

Voroxpete ,

Very little. Thanks to Docker + Watchtower I don’t even have to check for updates to software. Everything is automatic.

Voroxpete ,

And this, right here, is why Tesla’s stock price is down 50% from its all time high.

Voroxpete ,

It’s still massively overvalued now. Just compare their market cap to any other major car manufacturer.

Voroxpete ,

To put in perspective how detached from reality Trump Media’s stock price is, the Truth Social platform’s total revenue is about the same as a single McDonald’s location.

Despite this, the company has a market cap of almost 5 billion. That is completely insane.

Voroxpete ,

Sorry, but that’s just incorrect. You unknowingly downloaded a whole bunch of things just in the process of making this comment.

This is one of the issues that has confounded people since the invention of the world wide web; from a computer’s perspective, there is no such thing as “viewing” a file. Everything is a download. The only difference is what your computer does with the file after the fact.

If you load up a thread on a forum and someone posts a CSAM image to that thread, your compouter will download it. You don’t have to make any active choice, other than loading the thread itself, for that to happen. Same on Discord, WhatsApp, or anything else. All forms of access are downloads.

Edit to add: None of this is relevant to this particular case since the defendant allegedly viewed the video multiple times across a period of two years, which, y’know, is in absolutely no way accidental. But it’s still important to understand the distinction because there are a lot of situations where it absolutely does matter.

Voroxpete , (edited )

Download itself is also a network terminology, referring to incoming data, moving to you, also known as RX and TX in shorter form.

This is just about the only correct statement in this rambling mess of a comment. Yes, downloading means that data is moving to your system.

So, given that fact, how do you imagine that your web browser displays an image without downloading it? How does the data comprising the content of the image end up on your system in order for the web browser to render it without traveling to it from the server; ie, being “downloaded”?

Voroxpete ,

OK, suppose the police find out that a CSAM image was posted on a forum. About an hour later it was deleted by the mods, but in that time it was unwittingly viewed a number of times by users of the forum who had no idea it was in that thread. Some users didn’t even scroll down far enough in the thread to actually see the image, but it still got grabbed by their web browser, because the browser loads the whole page, not just the part you’re looking at. Now suppose that you are one of those users.

Now the cops subpoena a list of every IP address that downloaded that image, tie those IP addresses back to specific users. Now you get your door kicked in by the cops looking for evidence of child porn stored on your computer. And depending on various other factors, they might even still find that image stored there in some form, without you having any idea about it.

This is why it’s important to understand that there is no technical difference between downloading and viewing. Your lawyer’s job is now going to be to prove that you never wittingly chose for that image to be delivered to your computer, even though it absolutely was delivered there as a direct result of actions you took. Your web browser made the request to the server to send that image to it, because you made the request to open that page. So there has to be more than just the technical action of “downloading.” There needs to be intent.

Now in this case, there clearly was intent, given that the image was viewed multiple times over two years. But that’s important context that is needed on top of just the fact that the image was downloaded.

Voroxpete ,

likewise, i could just as easily argue that everything you “post” on the internet is actually an upload, and as a result, you upload every interaction you have on the internet

Yes. Again, that’s literally what is actually happening.

You keep throwing out these statements like “Oh, well if that’s true then we might as well also say this is true” and then “this” turns out to be just the most banal shit.

I genuinely don’t think you even know what it is you’re trying to argue here. You’re either so down in the weeds of some bizarre semantic sophistry that you’ve lost track of daylight, or you’re arguing points that no one else was disagreeing on while acting like you’ve just dropped the Pentagon Papers.

Either way, I really can’t be bothered anymore. I’ve tried my best, but it’s like trying to teach a pigeon to read.

Voroxpete ,

More to the point, anything which displays an image from a remote source has to download the image in order to do so. Whether or not you choose to store that image somewhere permanently, it was still downloaded either way.

Voroxpete ,

Yeah, loathe as I am to say anything kind about the Iranian regime, this is still a remarkably constrained response given the circumstances. Isreal blew up their embassy, killing two of their top generals. Obviously, in an ideal world you’d work out a purely diplomatic solution, but then in an ideal world Isreal wouldn’t have blown up that embassy in the first place. The Iranian government know they have to show strength or else the backlash among their people would be insane. They were put between a rock and a hard place and picked a pretty smart way out.

And they know damn well that this whole thing kicked off in the first place because Netanyahu is trying to engineer a war. He knows he’s losing international support with his genocide in Gaza, and a war with Iran would effectively reset the field. As soon as its “ally vs enemy” all the other questions go out the window. Isreal gets a clean slate, and probably wipes out or at least seriously damages several enemies in the process. The only question is how he can make it happen in a way that will draw the US in.

'Run, run, run': Chaos at a Sydney mall as 6 people stabbed to death, and the suspect fatally shot (apnews.com)

A man stabbed six people to death at a busy Sydney shopping center Saturday before he was fatally shot, police said, with hundreds fleeing the chaotic scene, many weeping as they carried their children. Eight people, including a 9-month-old, were injured....

Voroxpete ,

My wife is a reg-force infanteer. At the kind of distances you’re firing at inside of a shopping mall she could comfortably dump a ten round burst into a person’s torso and not miss a shot. Even an untrained shooter could easily land a lot of lethal hits if they were firing into a crowd. And yes, automatic fire is absolutely used in urban combat; at close ranges it is very easy to control a fully automatic weapon sufficiently for that. The standard strategy is to aim for the navel and let your fire carry up the torso; it’s known as “zippering”. When intentionally controlled by the shooter these weapons do not jump around anything like the way you’ve seen in video games.

Also, generally full auto is not that great for suppressing fire, unless you’re talking about a machine gun. With an assault rifle you’re better off maintaining steady suppression in semi-auto. It’s not so much the volume of fire that keeps a target’s head down as it is the consistency. Dumping a whole mag and then stopping to reload gives them plenty of time to set up and start laying hate on your position. There are exceptions like Aussie Peel Out, but they’re rare. For the part talking guns is the way it’s done.

That’s without even getting into the fact that saying “automatic weapon” doesn’t necessarily mean “fully automatic” (hence why the word “fully” is usually in there; if there wasn’t any ambiguity, why is it necessary to specify?). It’s much more likely that the previous commenter was referring to any form of self-loading weapon.

Voroxpete ,

Hold up, let me just check with a professional soldier real quick…

Yeah, my wife says that in an urban combat situation like this (basically anything taking place in or around buildings, even a larger building like a mall), you almost certainly would be using full auto (if you have the option). At longer ranges however you would definitely switch to semi-automatic fire.

That’s assuming you’re up against armed resistance and know what you’re doing, of course. If you’re the kind of coward who goes and murders a bunch of innocent strangers, any self-loading weapon is going to be significantly more dangerous than not having one at all, be it semi-automatic or fully-automatic.

Voroxpete ,

Actually the main reason they did it was because they were dealing with a problem of psychology that they were trying to solve with technology.

Basically you’ve got a bunch of terrified conscripts who you’ve dragged off the streets and flown out into the middle of a jungle to fight a pointless war that they in no way care about or believe in.

The lack of accuracy was a combination of piss poor training and blind screaming terror.

The US military looked at this and said “Clearly the guns are the problem.”

Voroxpete ,

“All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts,” - Acts 2 44:46

Just saying, old school church was pretty big on sharing.

Voroxpete ,

I think you’re talking about the Geneva Checklist there bud.

Voroxpete ,

To be fair, given what happens when Canadians get violent it’s probably better for the rest of the world if we don’t spend more on our military. They’re dangerous enough already.

And I say this as someone who’s married to one of them.

Voroxpete ,

Bruh, you know NDP voters exist, right?

Voroxpete ,

Sorry, I can’t hear you over the sound of the C7 being the best AR15 ever made.

Voroxpete ,

Ah, the Skaven solution.

Voroxpete ,

Divorce

Makes sense: Even a marriage is easier to exit than Vim

Voroxpete ,

Deep down, every Vim user just wants one person to tell them that the countless hours they spent leaning to use it weren’t a total waste of time.

Voroxpete ,

This bird deals frost damage, and you can’t convince me otherwise.

Voroxpete ,

Calories are just a measure of the energy released by a material.

Normally they’re measured by burning the material, so it’s not really accurate to say that you can get that many calories from uranium. On the other hand the whole concept is fucking stupid anyway, because it’s measured by burning the material. Technically, a kilo of dry sawdust has 4800 calories (more than double the daily calorie requirement of the average person).

Voroxpete ,

Oh boy, it sure was a good idea to rely on one company, with facilities located in just one country, for almost all production of an essential component that basically all modern technology needs in order to work.

Voroxpete ,

Weird headline given that the Tories are the UK government.

What this seems to actually mean is “some backbenchers”

Voroxpete ,

It’s spotted within 5 minutes by some nerd who noticed that the program took an extra ten seconds to load and immediately wanted to know why.

Voroxpete ,

Too stealthy. Crews can’t find it.

Voroxpete ,

Government ownership of property is nice in theory, but I’ve seen just how badly gov’t mismanaged public housing in Chicago. It was horrific. There’s very little way to directly hold a gov’t accountable, short of armed revolution.

Anything is bad if you do it badly. It’s ridiculous to dismiss an entire concept because you can name examples of when it was done wrong.

Bad drivers exist so no more cars. Bad laws exist so no more laws. Bad governments exists, so no more governments. It’s an asinine way of arguing.

Unless you can formulate clear arguments as to why government management of rentals cannot work as a concept, you should not dismiss it as a solution.

Voroxpete ,

Because landlording, as a practice, is a fundamental flaw in the system we live in.

That doesn’t necessarily make you a bad person, but it makes you a part of a bad system.

To some degree, we’re all part of a bad system. Every time we buy a latte, or a smartphone, we’re participating in a broken system that causes unimaginable harm. Half the shit you own was probably made with slave labour.

That’s what “There is no ethical consumption under capitalism” means. It’s not saying “don’t consume”, it’s saying the idea of living a morally pure life in a morally defunct system is impossible.

We don’t yet know what a future post-capitalist housing system will look like. Maybe your particular scenario is one that will eventually be seen as perfectly acceptable.

For now, if you feel what you’re doing is completely justified then you can simply assume that the hate isn’t directed at you. You don’t have to jump in and justify yourself at every turn. That’s no different than being the guy who has to yell “I’m not like that” every time a woman talks about how shitty her interactions with men are.

And even if what you’re doing isn’t a moral good in the world, it may simply be that it’s the best you can do in a bad system. We’re all just trying to survive, and capitalism demands that we be morally impure in order to live, because there are no morally pure ways left to live. Again, you don’t need to justify that. We’re trying to fix a broken system. No one here called you out personally by name.

Voroxpete ,

it just has not worked when it’s been done so far

Big, BIG “citation needed” on that one chief. Just speaking from my own experience growing up in England, council housing schemes were fantastically effective at getting people into housing with reasonable rental costs. And similar schemes have been successful all across Europe. I’m told there are similar success stories in the US as well.

I think you’re just picking one or two bad examples and just treating that as the whole dataset because it fits your prior assumptions. It’s easy to do, because people complain when government efforts don’t work (and often they complain even when they do; there are plenty of “bad” government programs that are actually fantastically effective, people just moan about their imperfections to the point where everyone assumes they’re broken) but rarely celebrate the successes.

Voroxpete ,

Just because you can find one example of a good use of a bad system, doesn’t make it a good system. That’s like saying that monarchy was good actually because you can name some good kings.

Voroxpete ,

First off, let’s assess the purpose of this question. If you’re implying that an argument against a system is invalid without a fully thought out proposal to replace it, you’re engaging in pointless sophistry. If someone says “I think my leg is broken” you don’t ask them to tell you exactly how they think it should be fixed before you believe them. We don’t have to know the solution in order to realise we have a problem.

With that caveat out of the way, I’m personally a big advocate for getting private capital out of rental markets. I know a lot of people just want to eliminate renting altogether, but I agree that this is short sighted. It either relies on the idea that everyone owns their home, which isn’t always practical, or that people simply have homes provided at no cost, which opens up its own complications. Basically, while I am in favour of the total destruction of capitalism, I don’t think that has to mean getting rid of money. Money is a very useful way of tokenising resources so that they can easily be exchanged. This allows for more efficient distribution of the correct resources to the people who most need them.

What I want to see is rentals at a price that everyone can afford l. Obviously, in an ideal scenario this would be paired with UBI to ensure that no one ever goes unhoused, but we’ll focus on the housing side for now.

If given total power over my country’s political system, I would look to implement a scheme that would ultimately result in rentals being handled only by Crown corporations (not-for-profit entities operating at arm’s length from the government) created with a mandate to provide affordable rental properties. These corporations would invest building and buying housing in their area in order to fulfill this mandate. They would also be required to offer rent to own schemes. Rental rates would be set by a formula that would account for factors affecting the desirability of a property such as location, square footage and amenities. Conflicts would be solved by waiting lists.

Private rentals would be outlawed (with possible carve-outs for situations like a property owner who is temporarily away from their primary residence - even in these situations, the rental would be handled by the Crown corp with the collected rents passing to the property owner, minus a handling fee). Most likely this scheme would be phased in over time, allowing investment property owners to sell off their properties to the Crown corps. Investors would take a hit on this, but any economic downsides will be more than offset by the upside of the vast majority of the populace becoming, in effect, significantly wealthier (in GDP terms the economy would certainly shrink, but GDP is a terrible measure of economic health).

Unfortunately necessary disclaimer: This is the rough outline of a proposal. Were I actually in a position to implement it, a LOT of details would be worked out in committee, with advice from respected experts. This disclaimer shall be henceforth known as “The Sign”. Do not make me tap “The Sign.”

Voroxpete ,

To be decided by committee. We’d have to study both options and examine the potential negative and positive impacts.

In general the goal of the rent formula would be to keep average rents at a low percentage of average incomes. That means a typical two person apartment should clock in at, say for arguments sake, around 20% of monthly minimum wage. So even if there was some flex in rental prices, it should basically be impossible for anyone to struggle to make rent.

That said, I think it would definitely be important to ensure that an increase in desirability in an area doesn’t end up punishing the existing inhabitants. That way lies gentrification. This would tend to argue against factoring in desirability. A waiting list system will naturally push people away from areas that are highly desirable, since no one will want to wait that long for somewhere to live. I suspect that alone would be a sufficient solution, but again, I’d like to see it studied.

Obviously, there are problems this can’t solve, but they need their own solutions. More walkable neighbourhoods, better public transit, these are the kind of factors that would help reduce housing pressure on specific areas by making everywhere more desirable to live. Same goes for ensuring fair distribution of resources to schools and other public amenities, and so on.

Voroxpete ,

I’d argue that the obvious desired state is simple; people should not struggle to afford housing. Every other consideration is secondary to that. The question is just how to get there.

Voroxpete ,

Yeah, what the fuck is with the depiction of Zorin here? Someone really got wowed by that plasma theme, eh?

Voroxpete ,

Nah, I’m Debian user and that’s a fucking solid depiction of Debian.

It’s not fancy, it’s not pretty, it has no bells and whistles, but it’s God damn workhorse and it’ll keep on trucking no matter what you do to it.

Voroxpete ,

I mean, under the hood it’s just Ubuntu. No one’s questioning how reliable it is. It’s just that everything that actually makes it Zorin is just a bunch of fancy skins. It was designed to be something you could load on your Grandma’s PC and still have it look like Windows.

Voroxpete ,

Now do NixOS.

Voroxpete ,

Some wifi drivers. It’s because of the Debian philosophy of never using non-free (as in speech, not beer) software.

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