no idea why you're being downvoted.
you're entirely correct, and i don't interpret you as defending telegram's lack of user protections
(noticing a real uptick in reddit hivemind around lemmy lately, it's depressing tbh)
ganymede
joined 4 years ago
Everything that’s encrypted is generally more private and secure than the equivalent which isn't encrypted
honestly i think this is due to unplanned voice calls essentially being broken technology now.
imagine we had 2020s email spammers while mail servers had 1990s spam filters, that's basically where we're at now with unplanned voice.
They gave a fuck about negative pr
The planet does
The planet which happens to be where we live and borrow atoms from to make our physical bodies?
Poisoning the planet is poisoning ourselves.
Where do you think that CO2 is even coming from? It doesn't magically teleport into the air. It's coming from the very pollution sources we're talking about. In one year ~89% of CO2 pollution came from emissions sources which are harmful to us and other life.
Stop poisoning ourselves == stop poisoning the planet.
The mentality that we can somehow magically separate one from the other suits the polluting industries very well.
Notice how public discourse goes round & round in a lively show, but never seems to get anywhere?
This is strawman public discourse, and its largely by design.
Stop thinking, worrying and especially talking about climate change.
Instead talk about pollution & poison
Everyone can see it. It can't be denied or handwaved or debated away.
STOP POISONING OUR AIR, WATER AND SOIL.
WE NEED THEM TO BREATH, LIVE AND GROW OUR FOOD. (duh)
When you work in an industry where the entire collaborative workflow of everyone is based on software that doesn’t run on Linux, then not running that software is equal to not being able to work in that industry.
there's no denying that's true, though ofc it has alot to do with microsofts very agreessive and anti-competitive practices.
though its all a bit tangential, the main issue i think comes down to what someone means when they say "everything". certainly if someone said "you can do everything", i'd expect them to qualify what is (should be) obviously a slight exaggeration as parlance. they don't literally mean "everything" they just mean most everyday things. i think its fairly common in everyday speech for someone to be able to work out thats what they meant.
in the few rare cases when someone literally means absolutely everything, then yes that silly statement would be incorrect. and if strictly intended with that meaning would certainly qualify as misinformation.
Not sure if when people say you can “do everything that windows does”, they should be interpreted to mean "every single piece of software/drivers ever written for windows was also written for linux".
aye exactly. since voting is apparently a big thing now, if we have to work within it, some ideas might help such as mentioned above where hackernews prevents downvoting replies to you.
some other ideas
-
permit upvoting but downvotes require a textbox reply (imo downvoting without a valid explanation is just noise, and we want signal over noise right?)
-
self posts not being upvoted (all posts start at 0)
-
i really like how lemmy shows both up & down rather than final value on alot of sites
-
no voting until you 'earn your stripes'. not perfect, but somewhat helps at keeping voting within domain expertise.
eg. i 'fucking love science', but just because an answer feels nice to me on nuclear rocket surgery doesn't mean my vote should count. let alone be equal to someone with expertise
how so?
check here for some basic examples. eg. it can be used to leak info from one context to another.
there's ofc legit uses for it too, which is why i argue for user intervention.
chromium based browsers behave like that if I’m not mistaken
i may be wrong? but my understanding is they'll currently limit resources, but execution still takes place? that's definitely useful, but my argument is for for an option where CPU resources be limited to 0 in background (without user intervention).
Yeah I don’t know. Just see how the modern world is shaping society to the negative I just don’t see where we are close to utopia But right now we are on a different path
That was essentially a big part of my point. We could be close to a utopia by now (from the perspective of technological possibilities).
Instead, as I said
for some suspicious reason we took a very different road, and here we are
That said I don't currently believe technology itself is inherently bad.
Like all tools, it depends what you do with it.
Is a general purpose tool like hammer good or bad? It has the capacity for both. And therefore it's up to the user which is which.
And that's the issue really, what are we doing with our wonderous technology?
This might be a bit of a radical take. But in that ~125 year window i was refering to, alot of machines we've invented are actually weapons.
Weapons to destroy eachother physically (conflict/threats of violence etc).
Weapons to destroy nature (deforestation and probably most mining).
Weapons to destroy the mind (social media etc, actually most media now).
What if we'd had 1+¼ century of building a collective utopia instead of all these weapons?
afaict from the technical perspective it's not really unfeasible, its the non-technical problem: the user and what they use the tools for.
Another clue for us is probably the term appropriate technology, which is a vibe i think eg. solar punk is helping to cultivate.
Anyway we've done ALOT of misuse. That's why i don't blame technology itself.
I still think it's more about what we've done with it.
agreed
are you sure?
imo this commonly repeated view has never been substantiated.
we've yet to see a technical explanation for why it's "impossible/too expensive" which addresses the modern realities of efficient voice codecs, even rudimentary signal processing and modern speech-to-text network models.
how so? previously invasive features are simply written off as "a bug". they barely even need to issue some b̶r̶i̶b̶e̶s̶ fines (typical corporate solution to getting caught), that is the level we're currently at:
"whoops it was a bug, we'll switch it off"
"whoops another update switched it on again" (if caught, months/years later)
"whoops some other opt-in surveillance switched itself on again, just another bug ¯_(ツ)_/¯"
as long as they have deniability as a bug, there's almost zero repercussions and thus virtually zero risk. that is perhaps why a company out and talking about it openly is such a no-no. discussing intent makes 'bug' deniability more difficult.
in my experience when reading past the "they're not listening" headlines, and into the actual technical reports, noone has been able to conclusively rule it out. if you know of conclusive documentation, please post.
then there's the "they have enough data already" argument. which is entirely without foundation, as we all know very well: nothing is ever enough for these pathologically greedy entities. 'enough' simply isn't in their vocabulary. we all know this already.
[i didn't downvote you btw]