I’m not gonna go out of my way to review bomb his game or send him messages or at him on twitter. But I am not gonna stop calling him a narcisistic idiot whenever the topic comes up. People should know. That is not harassment, that is countering misinformation, at least IMO. A meme like this is not harassment in my book either. He is a public figure.

are somehow valuable are should be protected.

No. I believe that what isn’t harmful shouldn’t be banned. You don’t get to decide what is valuable or enjoyable to other people. If it does not harm someone, it should be allowed. We are not robots that are programmed to value things equally. What is insignificant to you can be important to others.

I thought that only other kids watch those videos and that everything about it is harmful. It basically trains easy to influence kids to fight for internet points

You can make this point about almost any entertainment for children. Having pretty clothes. Having fancy toys. Playing videogames. Playing sports.

Parent your children properly if you have any instead of trying to put them into bubble wrap.

That is not to say there are not specific things that are too harmful, but we won’t ban everything because maybe, some of it it could influence kids badly.

As for phones, if we have science proving that they are harmful to kids I don’t see how they are different from cigarettes or alcohol.

Show me research that show a dumb phone only making calls is harmful and I will admit you are right. Otherwise, it is not phones that are harmful, it is something specific on them. I have no issue regulating apps harmful to kids, like lootboxes, idle games, login rewards, etc. But it is not about phones.

You don’t know why it would be good to stop exploiting children for clicks and ad revenue? Do you think a 12 yo can consent to live streaming their life for the whole world to watch?

The question is not whether you can find one kind of video/streaming that is exploitative but whether all of them are. Is it exploitative to share video from a spelling bee competition? Is it exploitative to share a school theater video? If not, only ban the things that are.

Whether to give phones to children and how is a parents decision. As for the research, it is the same as above. Clearly these issues did not exist with early smartphones. So it’s not the phones, it something on them. My money is on social media and the “idle” games. Parents have the option to prevent installation of those.

You don’t ban pipes, because they can be used to make pipe-bombs. You ban making pipe-bombs. Your proposals are so broad they would ban way too many things that are ok.

Most people could live without youtube period. But what the fuck would be the reason to do it?

Even so, the much more ridiculous one to me is the second one.

No one.

It’s not about being pixel specific. They built high security OS that uses HW components to deliver that high security. It can’t be delivered without them. These components are not google patented nor does GrapheneOS demands they use the exact pixel ones. GrapheneOS just refuses to lower security to support phones that lack these components, because manufacturers wanted to save maybe a $1 per phone by not including them at the expense of user security.

Then let us know when they are solved. Until then, I have a lot more hope in matrix than XMPP. They at least seems to be making progress in the right direction, although they are not there yet either.

Signal remains the best option for now.

So much cope you didn’t even notice no one mentioned matrix. We are comparing XMPP with Signal.

Your reasoning would hold up if 80% of xmpp wasn’t running on Conversations or forks of it

Also, you really think saying only 20% of your chats are insecure is somehow making it better?

The encryption being crap really does not depend on the threat model. Sure, in some threat models you may not need e2ee at all but in that case, what’s wrong with WhatsApp?

The issue with XMPP is that security really was an afterthought. Not only is e2ee an optional extension, but there are actually 2 incompatible extensions, each with multiple versions. Then you have some clients not implementing either, some clients implementing the older, less secure one. Some implement the newer one but older version of the spec with known issues. And of course, the few clients that implement it well become incompatible with other clients that don’t if you enable e2ee, so it is disabled by default.

That is all before you start looking into security audits or metadata harvesting.

Tell me you don’t know anything about security without telling me you don’t know anything about security.

Except cluster bombs are not against the Geneva conventions. Though any weapon can break the Geneva conventions if intentionally aimed at civilians or some other situations.

Yes. Out of the federal military branches, only the coast guard can: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

What you say and what I say don’t contradict. ICE is already acting as if martial law was declared, ignoring due process/habeas corpus. If Trump declared martial law, those that still follow laws, constitution and the courts would keep doing so and those that follow Trumps orders above all would also keep doing so. There would be no substantial change.

There would probably be no consequences for him, but the “martial law” would probably be ignored and not happen.

As I understand it, in the US, martial law can only legally happen if the courts are unable to function. Basically, if things are so bad courts are unable to judge people, you let the military judge them.

There are: https://nimbusdata.com/products/exadrive/specifications/

They are just not listed in shops for poor people. (joking)

If you think having a force reset trigger is the same as having a full auto rifle, maybe you shouldn’t comment on gun legislation.

Again, the issue is that once you burn fossil fuel, you are not turning it into fossil fuel in any meaningful amount of time.

On the other hand, let’s say that a field used for producing plants for biofuel does not capture any carbon at all to simplify. So deforesting an area releases all the carbon a forest held. The difference is that the fossil fuel gives you energy one time, while the field produces it yearly. We need energy yearly. So if you deforest an area for biofuel, you release CO2 from deforestation but all the CO2 released in the future is what was recaptured by the plants. It is one time CO2 release for perpetual energy delivery. If you go with fossil fuels, you will keep burning more and more every year until it is much worse than deforesting an area.

So reforesting can capture CO2 already released, but that only offsets fossil fuels for some period of time. Even if you cover the whole planet in forests, there is a finite amount of fossil fuels you can burn before it is negated. That is why eliminating fossil fuel use, and quickly, is far more important than protecting forests. Once you burn fossil fuel, you can’t recapture it into fossil fuel and would have to increase fores area permanently to compensate.

the alternative to burning biomass would need to have very high emissions in order to come out ahead.

Not really, that’s the point. Soil has a max capacity of carbon it will hold. Just like biomass. So even if the fossil fuels release tiny amount of CO2, they release it continually vs deforestation releasing it one time. The only thing that changes is how long it takes for biomass to break even. But after thousands of years, the one time big release will always turn out better than continual small releases.

Of course, avoiding both deforestation and fossil fuels is even better.

It is superior if letting the forest grow means using fossil fuels. That was the point of my comment. It releases CO2, but only once and then is sustainable without additional CO2.

Of course, having the forest and e.g. nuclear power would be even better but that does not work very well for mobile applications, such as vehicles.

Not really. Sure, China is able to make unpopular decisions better then democracies, but that makes them inefficient in different directions. E.g. high speed rail in areas where it is not needed but greatly lacking freight trains. Or their housing bubble.