i’m trying to go to my desk to get started, it’s just, there’s all these unfinished and poor abandoned projects scattered everywhere…

i’ll keep trying though!

yeah i’m rethinking some stuff too, even in some utopia i think some information related to me might make life inconvenient, so the best way to protect that (e.g. not disclosing it digitally) maybe needs outta the box solutions.

related, does anyone even bother to look at physical mail for stuff? like if i put a cipher in a letter with no return address, using that pen ink that you can erase (which comes back if you put it in a freezer) and only i and my contact have the key to the cipher which we exchanged in-person; could anyone reasonably know it?

it seems digital stuff might be a carrot for surveillance people, maybe it can be made into a honeypot and physical or analog means can make a return.

Hi, could you touch on why F-Droid is less safe? Is it because they package (I think that’s the term?) stuff themselves?

Yeah, fair. It can’t delete your messages to the extent a centralized system, and that’s an indication of the lack of centralized control? It’s a different threat model I think many find satisfying (though perhaps not most).

I think most of your criticism makes sense.

The part about “not reading private messages” I think is mistaken, or rather, maybe amiss. I mean I don’t have evidence, so this is all conjecture. The sophistication of data surveillance and data gathering makes the content of the message rather meaningless in my view.

EDIT: Oh, I don’t think any adversaries of US, even if working together, make any meaningful threat towards it. It’s really hard to imagine, esp. considering the US has a bunch of successful coups & stuff under their belt.

Huh, would it be possible to provide a source? I might be bad at searching, I’m not finding anything…

I use signal as well, might be worth looking into these two links to better manage expectations.

First here and second here.

Related post by Matrix here

Yo, thanks so much for the resources! I found what looks to be the relevant group for calendar extensions, one of the most recent proposals/things is representing contact data with JSON.

This is definitely something I’ll be looking into and hopefully contributing to one day!!

EDIT: whoops, here’s a relevant link

thank you for your service 🫡

I don’t think they are federated? Neither is the other big community whatever it’s called.

t-shirt for me

prices are lower, piracy is nearly free for most, no?

i think the notion of ‘convincing’ is the issue. it really needs to be done by men, it’s not as though what women are saying is factually incorrect or the content is off, it’s often the opposite i find. when i say what women or feminists i respect say i always seem to get a better response than if a woman said it or the original author said it.

it’s such a shame, there’s already a ton of work done by a sizeable proportion of the population and it’s ignored or misconstrued :/

contemporary feminism (and the wave immediately before) have done a lot more for me than how men have told me I ‘ought’ to act. fine, I’m not as manly or a man as far as some are concerned. what is really annoying is the apathy and close-mindedness of most of these men who interacted with me negatively.

asking a few questions is enough to make them emotional (which is fine when they do it and not ok when others do it in a way unlike their own) and more intensely emotional than nearly all women i’ve interacted with. that too is fine, it becomes a pain when i’m taken to be some kind of enemy or other by standards it seems like they cannot apply to themselves.

i want to say they are gaslighting, only, i really don’t think it’s intentional. there’s a genuine misunderstanding and that’s annoying as heck.

Would you say like in the case of your comment, where the ratio skews heavily towards negative, something like having the thread collapsed by default or like hiding the score would be a better way to facilitate productive discussion? I think it works as a temporary middle ground (say the first 24H a post is up and folk’s aren’t completely decided, it gives controversial ideas a fightin’ chance)

So I actually want to engage with you. If some stuff ends up being like “collapsed” or “hidden by default” because some just had a one-off bad experience with users from a particular community, do you think you’d agree that it is an OK compromise or is that relenting too much for freedom of expression?

oh is that not the case anymore? is that because world is the biggest instance now? might be preferable if most don’t appreciate their politics. Also like, I wouldn’t want server downtime or anything to effect the devwork of lemmy…

Being intolerant does not necessarily mean complete exclusion. Like one-way federation is still allowed right? So if some folks wanna comment they can still get the same content, the folks who don’t won’t. I think that’s a decent middle ground for the meantime.

There is another solution. Make it so witches cannot cause harm, everyone gives a little bit to make everything work for everyone.

We already give things away: money with taxes, certain liberties, information, hours of our lives; how many of those are done with complete intentionality? i.e. could we choose to do something else? I’d rather do something I choose or want to do even if its harmful or less pleasant because it’s something I am privy to instead of not.

This really sounds like a reformulation (with more accessible language and preferable IMO) of Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance. I have it below for your convenience:

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. (in note 4 to Chapter 7, The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. 1)