Im also not sure what they meant… 8 actually read it differently the first time… like clippy being a voice of western media, equating not handing arms to Israel with it’s destruction. Just like they equate asking for the end of genocide with antisemitism.

State ≠ people

I never understood how a statistical word-predicting model was expected to be obedient in the first place… of course we can train the model to say yes rather than no to command-sounding phrases, but thats a rather shallow mechanism.

What if the gov has access to both tor nodes, cloudfare infrastructure and mozilla servers?

Exceptions exist. Lets push to make these exceptions more frequent.

They are both stupid and dishonest

During the pandemic, bolsonaro was catering to antivax and his whole family was pretending they werent getting vaccinated. But a leaked facebook post by his sons wife showed her mocking antivaxers, saying she was vaccinating her daughter… Theyre just playing the roles they were assigned to in public.

Use the first version with personal relationships. Dont let paranoia ruin your social circle.

With politics, assume the worst.

deleted by creator

It must really be empty… Two contradictory assumptions lol

People wouldnt move. They know its not secure and they dont care enough.

Telegram doesnt even pretend to be end to end encrypted.

Oh, I’ll try it, thanks!

It isnt optimized. Its gibberish written just to give some weight to the headline. People do bad jobs at science popularization too.

There are a bunch of things to research on fusion. Maybe they just thought this specific thing was out of reach, but were still trying to do other things.

Like the PvsNP computer science problem. Most computer scientists believe its impossible to make a polynomial algorithm that solves the traveling salesman problem, so most dont even try. But we dont know for certain that its actually impossible.

Why substitute? Isnt that part of rule of law?

Maybe thats a law where you live but ive definitely been contacted by a bunch of companies through wpp without having contacted them first.

Wdym suddenly?

Then who will be held responsible for its decisions?

I see what you mean now.

The person you responded to at first, i think they played along with that comparison to argue that, even if it was a disability, being annoying doesnt justify bullying. They werent saying it is a disability, they were using another persons premise to argue that bullying isnt justified.

I know some people that are annoying in a way that doesnt seem to be a choice, they have a natural way of behaving that annoys people. And sometimes, what seems to be a choice to be annoying is just manifestations of a persons natural characteristics. So I think we cant actually make a clear distinction between whats a voluntary behaviour and a natural uncensored behaviour. We should just learn to deal with people less aggressively.