In artillery and similar massive pressure applications are used chlorine based lubricants.
These have the ultimate performance as the chlorine firmly attaches to the metal, but it also destroys the surface immediately (which is not a problem in an one shot application).
Would you argue that these are not lubricants because of that?
I have to doubt that it would push the populace against the company when the company is actually both providing good (free protection, DDOS mitigation, CyberSec) and supporting appropriate judicial process to make decisions.
Political threats of withdrawing from an event in an explicit attempt to pressure the country is the opposite of supporting appropriate judicial process.
No one is entitled to free shit, but anyone who says "I'll stop giving you free shit unless you do X" is not giving you free shit, they're engaging in barter. And bartering to try to change a law, just like paying to change a law, is obvious and illegal corruption.
Lora is fine if you want to send a very short message. Its not useful for much else.
Its also not a prevalent technology compared to general.internet/mobile phone.
Organising resistance with it is the pipe dream of those who play with chips and antennas, but its not something thats going to happen when crowds and mobs form up in a situation like this. Not least because the hardware is not accessible to your average citizen.
There are real-world examples of non-internet networks being created in authoritarian regimes. One example I've read about is in Cuba [1] but I presume there are others.
Yeah, that makes sense. I’ve curious if there are sneakernet things for communicating messages between passing mobile devices? Something that uses exist hardware and is actually used in practice.
In Iran they have had several police forces join the protestors at this point. Hopefully its a theme that continues and includes the military.
It only takes about 30% of the population supporting the regime plus military intervention to hold onto power. For some time now it seems that they've been below the 30% mark.
Israel is a terrorist regime that commits genocide against Palestinians. What use is it if the ones fighting it are terrorists as well? In your hypothetical world where Iran is the strongest regional power, what does that accomplish? The Palestinians trade Israeli and Hamas's oppression for being a protectorate of the Islamic Republic of Iran? I never really understood this line of thinking.
I feel like we are just covering whataboutism tropes now.
You can absolutely learn from an LLM. Sometimes.documentation sucks and the LLM has learned how to put stuff together feom examples found in unusual places, and it works, and shows what the documentation failed to demonstrate.
And with the people above, I agree - sometimes the fun is in the end process, and sometimes it is just filling in the complexity we do not have time or capacity to grab. I for one just cannot keep up with front end development. Its an insurmountable nightmare of epic proportions. Im pretty skilled at my back end deep dive data and connecting APIs, however. So - AI to help put together a coherent interface over my connectors, and off we go for my side project. It doesnt need to be SOC2 compliant and OWASP proof, nor does it need ISO27001 compliance testing, because after all this is just for fun, for me.
The issue is that lower profits are attached to self regulation, as is community backlash. Large tech companies rarely have a moral compass and their decisions are attached to return on investment to their financiers.
YouTube didn’t make it through because of how it actively pushes alpha male crap at teenage boys. The Tate brothers and others who push the whole toxic masculinity, man are superior, men must protect women even from themselves, to be a man you must be able to fight, men are owed a position of power and women should be subservient, etc. It was a very strong feature in the early debate, and something educators put in as part of their submission as being an extremely noticeable shift for young men, and those same young men quite consistently stating the same content they viewed.
YouTube’s tendency to push extreme rabbit holes and funnel towards extremism and conservatism in young men is what led to them being included.
"YouTube is targeted for a ban because it shows children conservative viewpoints" seems somehow simultaneously an obvious free speech violation and a proper own-goal for the conservatives pushing these rules.
Anyone can find specific things to dispute about Tate's views, but "traditional gender roles exist for a reason" is obviously not the position associated with the left.
You're putting Tate's views in an overly good light with the way you represent it. "traditional gender roles exist for a reason" is the very lightest possible way you can phrase his viewpoint.
He hates women, to the point of trafficking them. He's a predator and he spreads hate, and it reflects poorly on conservatives if they feel that represents their political views.
There is a generic flaw in humanity that controversy brings popularity. The result is that if you take the core of something popular (e.g. the political beliefs of half the population) and then sprinkle some rage bait on top of it, you'll have an audience. This is the business model for the likes of Tate.
The problem is, it's also an asymmetric weapon when you try to ban that unevenly. If you censor Tate but not the likes of Kendi who use the same tricks, you're saying that it's fine for one side to play dirty but not the other, and that's how you get people mad. Which plays right into the hands of the demagogues.
So all you have to do is achieve perfect balance and censor only the bad things from both sides, right? Except that that's one of the things humans are incapable of actually doing, because of the intensely powerful incentive to censor the things you don't like more than the things you do, if anyone holds that power.
Which is why we have free speech. Because it's better to let every idiot flap their trap than to let anyone else decide who can't. And if you don't like what someone is saying, maybe try refuting it with arguments instead of trying to silence them.
> There is a generic flaw in humanity that controversy brings popularity.
Not necessarily. You need to have that controversy shown to enough people of similar mindsets, which requires a platform, or for them to somehow grow their local audience, which was difficult for folks on the fringe to do in the past, but is easy now that social media promotes the fringe.
> So all you have to do is achieve perfect balance and censor only the bad things from both sides, right?
No. Regulate social media that drives views to these people. They're able to exist because social media uses algorithms based on engagement, and these people game the engagement system to slowly radicalize them. If you remove the pipeline, you also lower the popularity of these people.
Sure, some of this is word of mouth, but it's mostly not. Social media actively encouraging people to view this content.
> Because it's better to let every idiot flap their trap than to let anyone else decide who can't.
Yes, but free speech doesn't include the right to be platformed. Depending on the country, the definition of free speech also differs, and I have a feeling you're only considering this from the US point of view.
Parent of kids old enough to go clubbing, and have been to a few venues in the city myself recently because of that. Have also worked on this tech in a small capacity in government.
Yes, handheld is now used. If you use the digital licences app on your phone in NSW/QLD the licence details are picked up by a QR code and cross verified via an auth API with Services NSW / TMR QLD. You are also checked against a database of banned patrons, against court ordered exclusions, and police issued exclusions. If you use the physical licence, an extra step of ID —> licence details extracted occurs, then the same process is followed.
I agree that people will lose their identity online if age checks become normalised. That’s not been the case with the club and inner city alcohol venues checks.
Aren't those things organised the same way Apple face id is organised where the app itself can't get the biometric information, they just get a yes or no? That would be stupid as hell.
In Finland the government has allowed banks to offer (2fa) identification services to those that are using their services. If I sign into a government site using my banking ID, the bank gets paid for providing the service. To my understanding none of my actual ID information is transferred to a party wanting to identify me.
The Linkedin 'validate your identity' was the first time i was asked to actually take a picture of my passport/scan the chip. I'll refuse until they'll allow me to identify with my banking ID.
