FriendOfDeSoto

I think you can trust the operational side of it. I don’t think they’ve had many detrimental oopsies, the services work. I used them for a year and then jumped ship. One reason is the favorable comments by their CEO about the 47 administration, which I didn’t like. Another reason is the nitty gritty - they don’t clearly advertize what’s part of what package and I felt that was by design to get you to upgrade. And they definitely see themselves as a basket for all of your eggs. If you are moving there because you want to degoogle your life you end up just protonizing it. It’s better to spread around your stuff so you’re not dependent on one provider. If you just want a good VPN and don’t care about the rest of their services and the politics, you could make worse choices.

Florida Man strikes again.

Das war Englisch.

No.

The rise of progressivism has nothing to do with corporations decorating themselves with the relevant messages where it suits them. That’s just marketing. You see that in companies who championed the marginalized during the previous administration and dropped it near instantly when 47 came in. That’s corporate opportunism.

We have seen the rise of representative democracy, of fascism, the rise of communism in the past. I don’t think we have seen anything that deserves a similar label with regard to progressivism. There is a general sine curve thru the ages of left-leaning and right-leaning politics. And thru the swings from one side to another we have still abolished slavery, enfranchised women, built social security nets, decriminalized abortion (or at least permitted it in some cases) and same sex relationships, etc. A lot of it was built on political movements but I dare say none that rose to the top and stayed there. So a rise of progressivism is as non-sensical to me as a rise of conservatism. They are just opposite ends on the political scale and we dance from one side to the other and back again.

I think it’s because these are people with the power to do more than thoughts and prayers. But they just stick with that while also taking health care off veterans and giving tax breaks to the rich.

Art is a message. It has a sender and a receiver. The sender aka the creator has an idea and their synapses create the piece of art. The receiver - even when privy to the thoughts of the creator because they talked or wrote about it etc. - consumes it and has a response. It could be along the lines the creator had intended but it doesn’t have to be. Both sides could be equally happy with their side of it while thinking completely different things.

So an artist can try to attach a certain meaning to their artwork but it is no guarantee the audience will see it that way. Is the person in Munch’s The Scream screaming themselves or holding their ears to block out screaming they hear? I read what the artist intended and I can tell you I thought the other thing.

So far I’ve been talking about a single artist and a single consumer. That’s not how this works. There could be a group who have differing ideas about the art they’re creating, like a song. So it means different things to different people on the sender side already.

It gets really messy on the receiver side because ideally the art will be consumed by hundreds and thousands of people. In that group you will have opinion leaders tastemakers and they in turn will influence other recipients. History also filters artworks. I don’t think Leo thought his postage stamp size portrait of a smirking Italian merchant’s wife would be the most famous painting in the world if experts hadn’t endorsed it, it hadn’t forcefully changed owners, hung in Napoleon’s apartment, was stolen and recovered. So there are biases built in and it isn’t as clean cut as saying everybody interprets it their own way in most circumstances.

“They say those who can’t play coach. It seems those who can’t coach stand ten rows back shirtless shouting obscenities.”

You are making it seem like this is a new problem. And it isn’t.

Centuries back it was weavers who were displaced by the industrial revolution and automated spinning machines. Coal mining went unfashionable from the late 1970s onwards and miners had to find new work. Industry in the US closed up shop and moved to China. These are just three examples of workers being made redundant in their then capacity. Two out of these three went by without much loss of life, the majority of the workforce found new jobs over time, and only some of them were screwed on a more permanent basis. Unfortunately, that’s the shitty bell curve of these changes. But another thing that’s been proven again over time is that we always think these miners or these factory workers are completely unhireable and it turns out the majority isn’t. People thought MS Excel would eradicate the entire bookkeeping profession. And they are still around and I think actually grew in numbers because they are free from pencils and calculators and could do more interesting stuff instead. Don’t fall for the so-called AI will replace everything talking point. The people who say this are either invested in so-called AI companies or drank the koolaid. All we hear for the moment is how theses models do a good a lot of the time and then break catastrophically bad somewhere. Humans still need to have a look for the time being. And thus a new job is born: chAIperone.

The problem these days is how the state responds to massive shifts like that. Social security nets have a finer mesh in the developed world outside the US. It’s much easier to go from no job to living in a car to living under a bridge in the US. A lot of people in this thread call for UBI, which is sensible but isn’t even likely in the more socialist Europe. UBI is a good answer though. Education is another one, e.g. free training programs or college classes for long term unemployed. None of that seems likely under 47.

I used to be a completist and would start at ep 1. Now, if there is a big back catalog I’m more likely not to listen to the podcast at all and will only rarely get in at the current episode.

• invent the wheel

Sounds Swedish.

It’s gossamer thin, admittedly. But there is a shred of a justification for striking Iran that is covered by international law. I’m not saying it is a proven case yet that a preemptive strike against their nuclear program was called for, against a state whose raison d’être is to destroy Israel. But if the circumstances were just right, the Israeli-US allies could get away with it. (And if no good proof materializes, I suspect they will get away with it anyway. Remember Colin Powell’s PowerPoint? Did that have consequences other than killing people next door? I suspect that’s why they’ve crossed this bridge.)

There is not even a hint of a justification for what Russia is doing in Ukraine. Not in international law. And any possible moral high horse has already been shot long ago. It’s just imperial ambitions.

So we should not equate these two special military operations just yet. We may in the future and then we can throw all our rotten tomatoes at DC. But right now one probably should reserve judgment and refer to them as “alleged orcs” if one is given to name calling.

One ping only.

If these two companies are in bed with each other, they are hate-fucking each other though. Carnal pleasure but no love lost.

I don’t find this that infuriating. And you have choices to run a different browser. Granted, most of them are chromium based. Edge’s only use case is to download a Firefox fork and/or a better chromium that is neither Edge nor Chrome.

That’s great, I wasn’t aware of that.

The American fear of a proper ID system is puzzling to me. It’s constant fear mongering of overreach by the man and not enough appreciation of the benefits. The first one is a self-updating voter registry that eliminates the process of registering or having to check on your registration to make sure you didn’t get knocked off for no good reason. All people need to update their home addresses when they move. Another benefit is - if implemented well of course - that everybody could have a 2FA-quality chip in their pocket to allow for many services to be done reasonably safely online. The dreaded lines of the DMV come to mind. Another benefit is you could prove very quickly who you are, especially if fingerprints are on the chip, to counter mistaken identity arrests that may or may not have been instigated by a so-called AI.

So the government knows everything about you, sure. But it’s not a one-sided deal. And frankly, even if the government did not have this information on you before it turned tyrannical, it would ID you as a possible malcontent in no time. Your data is already available for sale on various data broker sites.

I realize that me preaching the benefits of a proper ID system to the Americans in times of 47 and ICE raids is a bit wonky. I am not going to speculate if the self-updating voter registry could’ve prevented 47. And ICE under 47 might find its job “easier.” But from what I’ve read and heard they haven’t exactly been detail-oriented public servants. When the rule of law breaks down everybody gets effed. And so-called illegal immigrants also have phones and use the internet so their information was also available for sale before stable genius returned to the orange office.

Of course there are dangers that need to be addressed. Access to the database needs to be tighter than a sphincter and every query needs to be logged. Every system will be abused. Checks and balances need to be there, ideally with a right to find out who looked you up and for what reason for everyone. I’d prefer a system embedded in law over internet data brokers.

Med al ret!

You do you et bon appetit. I’m sorry if I got hung up on that for no reason.

Maybe he likes being a tad unpredictable. If I had to choose if I wanted to be his friend or if I wanted to be stuck in an elevator with him for an hour, I’d clearly say neither, thanks. History will probably record him as a stirrup-holder of full born fascism.