The people making and passing these laws are 70-100 years old and not only have no idea what encryption or p2p is - they start deleting their gmail emails in their browser when their laptop pops up an out of space message.
My favorite goto in these discussions - the Australian PM saying that the laws of Australia override the laws of mathematics, when talking about encryption. You heard that right an old bald guy who doesn't know how to use the second mouse button because mice don't have buttons - they have ears and a tail - is legislating to break AES256. You just have to pass a law to break it you see, and then the math law will have to obey the overriding Australian law.
Here's the thing though - that's not what this is all about, and these old hags have a very well-versed body of people behind them pushing the agenda. The reason the old hags sound like clowns, is because they are puppets with clown makeup. The goal here, is exactly what you said. Prohibition of encryption, because the people in power want more till they're kings, and they want to see everything you do so they can stay kings. In reality, none of this is meant to be enforced. It is however meant to pile up bogus charges and remove you from the public eye where you can make noise against them, once they decide to remove you for any other reason they want.
Ironically, it's a delusion of youth to assume that the older ruling class is logically or morally wrong due to age. State level management agendas are generations in their planning and execution.
See the fact that a stodgy old aristocrat wrote the defining book on this matter over a decade before the redditor class had their first epiphany on crypto.
The political class has unlimited funds for any youthful advisement needed for necessary corrections, assuming for a second that youth brings actual advantage. They have unlimited access to the smartest people, all who know what encryption and p2p is.
It couldn't matter less what mistakes they make when speaking publicly. They could communicate solely through pre-recordings of their farts and still have their way. For better or worse. The only actual arena in which the future will be decided, when and where it is actually contested at all, is that of bleeding-edge technical dominance.
I'd offer that they are less idealistic than are crypto-warriors, and therefore the bulk of the latter may not be well enough calculated in what they are wishing for. Yet, like I said, it seems that the argument ultimately will be settled in tech.
This is exactly on point, but it has nothing to do with dating apps. The article claims dating apps are "soul-destorying" yet the first example it gives is of a woman solidly into her menopause who gave up on dating apps because she likes clubbing and one night stands instead of relationships.
There are low effort dating apps to get laid. To get laid, people don't want to put in a lot of effort. To get laid with a young guy, gramma Does have to put in a lot of effort, and it probably helps if her young lay is flipped out on E at an illegal underground club in London, as opposed to sitting in an office on his break between presentations.
My wife and I met on a paid dating app. It took me a day's worth of hours to fill in my profile, and what my requirements are. For my match, I defined education level, minimal number of fluent languages and what they are, age requirements by race (some age faster, some slower), political views, religion, even the types of makeup they usually wear (none in my preference).
I got about 20 matches per week, and could only write my matches. There was no swipe, no "like" button. Only a text box. I went on a date with a phd student in english lit. I went on a date with a french-american doctor chick who graduated Stanford with an MD at 22. I messaged about 2 girls per week and always got conversation going, usually mutually deciding not to meet. I got messaged by about 2 girls per week, and always replied. I went on one date per week for 2 months and met my wife who speaks 4 languages, has a master's, and is 7 years younger than me. We did have some incompatible things, which were flagged in the match profile, but we decided those could be worked on and got married 6 years ago, 6 months after we met. The only photo she had on the app was the one she took for her passport.
But on this app I used, you would not only have to pay $25/month, it would be next to impossible to get a piece of ass and you'd have to invest hours in text and phone conversations before you met.
There are different tools for different things. This absolute crap article points out that you can't win a formula1 race in a uhaul, and calls automobiles bad. And it's blatantly obvious in their very first menopausal opening paragraph. The article is the bad app here, and that type of "reporting" is what is "soul-destroying" our society. Shame on them.
This is false logic. Youtube is free to not show anyone anything - once they send me data and it leaves their system, they have no claim to it.
When I shout on a public street "sing me the Francoise Hardy version of I'll Be Seeing You," no one has to reply. If they do reply, but they decide to sing a 2 minute ad for a pyramid scheme first, I am free to cover my ears till the song comes on.
Google's servers have a public internet IP. I can "shout" a request to them. The data they send back to me, is mine to do with as I please. I am free on My computer, from the memory buffer on a RAM stick I own, to ignore some of the bytes, in My RAM change some of the bytes, or save some of the bytes to a file on my HDD. They are free to ignore any request I shout at them, but they have zero say in what I do on equipment they do not own.
> Youtube is free to not show anyone anything - once they send me data and it leaves their system, they have no claim to it.
Okay well they're about to not show you the videos. You support their latest announcement right? It is completely in line with the the philosophy you just put forward.
Not really. They're still showing people videos for free. Only difference is they're detecting the ad blocker and discriminating. That's a bug, they're not supposed to know about the blocker.
If you read the entire comment before replying to the comment, you would have your answer before you asked the question.
"They are free to ignore any request I shout at them"
I don't have any opinion on, nor care about their latest announcement to do with their hardware as they please. Their announcements are theirs and of no concern of mine. It's just a random website the has content duplicates available at a hundred more places. Bing video search has fifty times more results than youtube for example for any item I search.
Given that, of course, they're always going to show me their videos, because about a day after whatever change they make, software (that runs on my computer against my data) will catch up. They've made changes like this many times over many years. For about a week awhile ago the ads were not blocked and I stopped clicking youtube videos and just typed the title into bing and in 5 seconds played the same video from another source. Worked 100% of the time.
Sorry if that's not the gotcha you were going for.
>because about a day after whatever change they make, software (that runs on my computer against my data) will catch up.
Exactly: it just takes one bored or determined hacker to investigate their changes and update the ad-blocking software, and suddenly everyone is able to see the videos and block the ads again. The ad-blockers don't seem to have trouble keeping people around to do this work.
> they are free to ignore any request I shout at them
Exactly. That's why they're blocking ad-blocker users now. You're describing the exact thing they are doing and going to do more. Guess you're actually supporting Youtuber's policy.
I don't use google search (most of the time) as it's inferior - it ignores what I'm searching for, and substitutes what it thinks I should be searching for - and it's been doing that for years. There were free search engines before there were ads.
I don't use gmail because why would anyone want to use gmail for anything but temporary throwaways that'll get spammed.
I don't use google maps. nokia heremaps and openstreetmap (I use magic earth) are better in most ways, worse in others. When I go to a different country, I click "download country" and have a fully searchable map. No, I don't want a map that needs a data connection. No, I don't want to have to visually search the map for the thing I'm looking for, because someone barfed up a salad of dots that are place ads for things unrelated to my search. Google maps is not usable to anyone who has used something else. People who always use google maps don't know any better.
I do use google translate. This does not support your argument, because that's a service that is free, and does not display ads. You saying that the current ad-free service will disappear if ads were blocked from it... Can't make the comment on here that I want to make, so I'll let you imagine <words>
Youtube... Who give a crap. There were sites with videos before, there are other sites now. No, no one can host a huge expensive platform like that for free. So how about the people posting stuff, pay for their stuff being hosted. Then those people can inline talking ads or put a coke can on their desk, in their videos. You know, how ads in videos have been done since the existence of the video format, in 1920 all the way up to right now.
Google products, google customer service, and google the company, are inferior to the competition in almost every way. Except for google translate. Which again - has no ads.
>No, I don't want a map that needs a data connection.
Google Maps has had the ability to download maps for offline use as long as I can remember -- at least since 2013.
>This does not support your argument, because that's a service that is free, and does not display ads.
All Google services are ad-supported, at least indirectly. That's because Google pays for their development and upkeep, and Google's primary income stream is ads.
So when I go to Australia I can click "download Australia" in google maps before I board my flight? Or does it still let you only download a little zoom square like it did in the year 2013 to which you are referring? Does search work in those maps as it Didn't back then? I specifically gave an example, you then purposely ignored most of what I wrote to create a claim I did not make, and then said that claim is false. Do you do this often? Word on advice - this works on fox news where people only see the out-of-context sentence. It does not work when the people who read your reply, first have to read what I actually wrote.
Now, speaking of reading, I unfortunately stopped reading after your first sentence. This is because you immediately made it clear you are not communicating in good faith.
You have a good day, and enjoy winning all those arguments you yourself made up. The adults in the room ignore people like you and just move on.
Thanks for not overreacting, or conveniently misinterpreting my comment.
>I specifically gave an example, you then purposely ignored most of what I wrote to create a claim I did not make
No. Your next sentence implicitly claims that Google Maps is unable to download maps in general, and I succinctly contradicted this claim. Google Maps is able to download maps, but there are size limits, and Australia is much too big for it to download in a single offline map. True, it would be more convenient if it could download the entire country -- but wouldn't those other apps likewise be more convenient if they could download entire continents, or even the entire world at once? Why can't they? I haven't found the offline map size limit in Google Maps a hindrance in practice, and I've relied on it all over the world for years.
In case you've bravely shrugged off the mountains of bad faith that you have no doubt uncovered in this reply so far, and are still reading: Search works on downloaded maps, though only for car trips (not public transport or walking).
The US government isn't preventing anyone, especially non-citizens living in other countries, from exercising their free speech. We are also free to read your free speech, and deny you entry to our country because of what you said about our country.
What you are talking about here, is that we as a people, have no right to listen to what you say and make decisions based on that. What you are saying is that if there's a guy outside your house yelling that you're an evil bad person who should rot in hell, you obligated to ignore his words in your decision to open your door and invite him in, because he has a right to say anything he wants. Do you... Do you get robbed a lot? If you do, you should observe the world around you, and make decisions based on those observations. This will greatly help you not get robbed a lot.
It implies that other devices that are not supposed to report their MAC, but do, deserve a high CVE as well.
This has to do with a bug seriously compromising a feature. It does not reflect the overall security rating of the entire device. If I have a one-way data diode sending telemetry from the flight controller to a passenger's entertainment console, it works as intended - which is why they put in a layer1 one-way diode. When you have a feature, you use that feature for a scenario where it is useful.
If the flight controller data diode has a second fiber and allows it to be hacked from a passenger seat entertainment center, that is a high severity. It does not mean every network switch has a high severity security issue, because we don't put those into flight controllers that hook up to entertainment centers.
Let's do a car example. If I rent a Uhaul to move my piano, and it splits in half from the weight, this is a serious malfunction. It does not mean the mini-coop croaking from a piano loaded on it's hood is also a serious malfunction.
Let's do a food example. If I put an empty metal frying pan on a stove and it bursts my house into flames, this is a serious problem with the frying pan. If I put it in the microwave and it does that, that's not a problem with the frying pan.
There was sarcasm, but there was no derision. There's nothing wrong with sarcasm - it is a common and civil tool of communication. Sarcastically stating the fact about an bad take in someone's comment - that it is a bad take - is not derision. would you prefer dry talk completely lacking emotion? There is chat with a computer for that - you are here communicating with people.
Your take, is a bad take. Things are civil. They don't also need to look like two robots talking to an oven.
My favorite goto in these discussions - the Australian PM saying that the laws of Australia override the laws of mathematics, when talking about encryption. You heard that right an old bald guy who doesn't know how to use the second mouse button because mice don't have buttons - they have ears and a tail - is legislating to break AES256. You just have to pass a law to break it you see, and then the math law will have to obey the overriding Australian law.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VB3uQHa14g
Here's the thing though - that's not what this is all about, and these old hags have a very well-versed body of people behind them pushing the agenda. The reason the old hags sound like clowns, is because they are puppets with clown makeup. The goal here, is exactly what you said. Prohibition of encryption, because the people in power want more till they're kings, and they want to see everything you do so they can stay kings. In reality, none of this is meant to be enforced. It is however meant to pile up bogus charges and remove you from the public eye where you can make noise against them, once they decide to remove you for any other reason they want.