No. I value fun. I myself choose often not to be offended when I realize others aren’t trying to offend me. I almost never get offended. I know it’s possible to live this way. I know that others’ jokes aren’t a threat to me.
You don’t seem to realize that a thing being offensive isn’t an objective fact. Offensiveness is in the eye of the offended. That gives power to the offended, to solve their own problem.
If this party is benefiting from a temporary outage of the IA, then that means their exposure window is temporary. That makes me think they’re doing something where the evidence will appear on some website temporarily, but not permanently. Don’t know what that might be, but that would be the profile of a thing which would benefit from DDoSing the IA.
The alternative is they’re trying to kill IA permanently. Enough time of its having zero utility to the world will eventually kill it. Could take years though.
Could be a rogue AI. It is a strange thing to see.
But generally speaking, I don’t feel confused when I see beautiful things attacked. I’ve seen a lot of things get attacked because they’re beautiful and useful, and it doesn’t surprise me any more.
Wasn’t there some controversy involving Internet Archive just recently?
Whoever’s behind this is trying to get rid of the fact that Internet Archive creates memory of the internet’s contents. Somebody wants to be able to control what people see on the internet.
Heck it could be Google doing it, since that would be in line with their recent push to change the way search works. Both of those act as components of a larger drive to control what people see and hear.
These aren’t “consequences”. These are new rules we’re imposing on good people.
The fact you view this as a war between you and the companies being regulated means I hope you are never a regulator. You see it as an operation to take them down. That’s fucked up.
I’ve been giving Parsemus foundation money for over a decade, and never knew that.
Actually I stopped giving them money because their original super far-out date to market was 2018, and 2018 sort of quietly sailed by without mention of it
Yeah I think I agree. The law should be: if you can’t positively confirm it’s clean, you can’t use it.
We should have standards for the treatment of people, and strive not to participate in or reward those who treat people in unacceptable ways.
If we have to take on some difficulty for that, so be it. Maybe if our difficulty gets to the point where I’m hungry, I’ll choose differently. But until then I’m willing to take a break from this or that car brand until they can figure out ethical sourcing.
I do think, to whatever extent possible, the change should be implemented smoothly. Maybe a rapidly-growing tariff on such goods for a few years, followed by a ban on their import, instead of an immediate ban on the import.
It’s not good for a country to create an unfair marketplace. And it is an unfair marketplace when rules which acutely affect only certain people drastically for the good of all, are implemented too quickly to adapt to without major setbacks.
Just saying it should be phased in, to minimize local economic tearing.
In ancient english we didn’t have pronouns. So when cavemen looked at far away land all they had was “is land?” and when they finally got there on the backs of dinosaurs, they said “yes is land”.
This brings up an important point. Greenhouse effect is not the only factor in global temperature changes. There’s also solar input rate which varies enormously with cloud cover.
Not sure what you’re referring to exactly. VW is saying they can’t comply with the new law because China is not transparent enough. Sounds like that’s the truth.
Would you expect them to simply stop doing business in China as a result of this lack of transparency?