• 0 Posts
  • 26 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 26th, 2023

help-circle




  • Their leader calls journalists vermin and they go on about the ‘Lugenpresse’, his followers shoot up synagogues, allied media spread Nazi/far right inspired anti-semitic canards like Cultural Marxism (‘Kulturbolshewismus’), they go on about how the ‘’‘left wing intellectual elite’‘’ are trying to undermine western values and cause a decline of morals and degeneracy (‘Entartung’), they’re afraid of difference, they hold the weak in contempt, they abhor nuance so use a limited newspeak vocabulary to limit critical reasoning, they’re obsessed with plots, and on social media many of his followers spread the Q-anon conspiracy which is a reworking of the antisemtic blood libel canard.

    Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, is a duck.

    I presume we’re no longer talking about the movie’s marketing department…?

    Here’s a Sartre quote that’s also increasingly relevant (again):

    “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

    What I’m reading here are things in the lines of “Good faith anti-Semitism doesn’t exist” or “anti-Semitism is intrinsically confrontational and quarrelsome”. I don’t quite think that’s a tenable position as it would be trivial to disprove. Am I misreading this? What is your take?
    Are you sure the line is concerned with anti-Semitism in general and not only with a very specific kind of anti-Semite (e.g. mid-century, mid-Europe, Bierkellerputsch-y types)?








  • what? no! licenses are how authors are deciding to grant specific permissions on their copyright.

    Sure. But that does not contradict what I wrote.

    that is like saying because you found a book in a library you have the choice to copy it and sell it.

    That is precisely the choice one has. It’s a choice one doesn’t have when one doesn’t know the contents of the book or when they are confronted with closed-source software.

    the fact that source is available does not grant any permission besides looking at it.

    Yes I agree. “Making the choice” would require making it without the author’s permission.
    But again, I’m not talking about permissions as I don’t really consider them to be nearly as important as availability and ability. One has the ability to modify/use code with the source and without permission one does not have the ability to modify/use code without the source and with permission.

    So yes, Libre is nice, but the source-open aspect is always the most important component.


  • I’m getting brain damage from this thread. So many stupid people here.

    2010 called, it wants its vaguebooking back 😜

    But in all seriousness, if you have grievances or consider any particular piece of information that you stumble upon to be incorrect then you need to either point that out specifically or refrain from commenting - otherwise you’re actively confusing and deteriorating a conversation, that’s not good.


  • The source code from windows have been leaked a few times already. Try repackaging it or redistributing with modifications, see how far it will go before you get sued into oblivion.

    I’m not really sure what you mean here, it has been modified and redistributed vigorously ever since its leak.

    “Suing a random internet person on the other side of the world” is rarely a successful proposition. In order for that to work there would have to be incentive, jurisdiction and a lack of anonymity :P






  • I am not sure if it will work out like this though. The amount of ads they are forcing down peoples throat is isane. Eventually it will make people consume less videos and with that less ads overall.

    Sure, could be - but keep in mind that they have all the relevant usage data at hand. Any decrease in service popularity among users (or indeed any kind of user behavior) is immediately visible to them. They have the means to know exactly what annoyances the market will bear.

    And considering that YouTube still holds a de-facto monopoly on video discoverability within the entire anglophone internet I feel like it’s safe to say that the market will likely bear a lot more annoyances :P