I obviously do not support this application of martial law. I pointed at a mask mandate because it fits your dictatorship vision.

I also didn’t say a thing about kidnapping. Telling people to “get off a plane” without a justification is not kidnapping. If you say “get off this plane, we think it has a bomb on it” things wouldn’t fly any better with people freaking over and having panic attacks. You can do the explaining once people are out of the plane.

So, you can’t accept the idea that in very specific circumstances it can be a good thing for cops to tell you to do something without having to reach for a court order? Like an emergency evacuation order that needs to be secret during that very same hour for whatever good reason or the checkpointing of people in a region where you know that a major prison break just happened?

Not talking about the random pig just thinking “hmm, I’m the boss now” out of nowhere; I’m talking about someone like the head of the police forces giving an order indiscriminately that is limited to a temporal scope.

Even things like “masks are mandatory” can be seen as a “muh freedoms” violation.

If you take things to such extremes, can we have the freedom not to have such freedom? Apparently is what the entire world wants except for a few thousand internet folks

The I in IP stands for intelectual; AKA, the clever things they reached with their thoughts. The artificial limitations are not IP, simply mechanisms they included exclusivity. They needn’t be clever. if (!apple) { rejectApp(); hideDocs() } is not IP.

Why exactly is this worse?

It is an optional feature that the majority of people will be using, making herd immunity for those who do not

And how exactly do you plan to reach this high quality elite content without search engines?

“[search term] reddit” has been a top search since OpenAI decided to open the SEO bot floodgates.

Didn’t they have some of the biggest house prices to income ratios? And wasn’t private tutoring out of control in there? And weren’t they fighting with almost every single neighbor they have?

Just because it is most of the time bullshit, it doesn’t mean that is not a thing ever. The “think of the children” doesn’t imply that legit application of child-protection laws are not a thing.

Telegram is for example known for Russian military bloggers, which are, in fact, promoting terrorism.

So, instead of fixing the cesspool we just designate a place for them? Why not just going after the ones committing crimes and state that big public groups must have moderation for basic shit? (Like no death threats and that kind of “moderation”, not a "I don’t like your opinions)

Alternatively: It is not (and generally not even encrypted) and he just happened to be in contempt.

Plenty of military-oriented and shady-business going in in there.

There’s still the possibility that the authorities wanted to go after specific someones with a proper warrant and Durov blocked it. No country on earth goes for that.

We’ll get to know the charges soon enough.

What you are trying to point is that in the United States of America (and maybe Canada) you people have coffee that’s so expensive that two of them pay for YT premium. You’re only missing out on most of the internet (eg. Not the US).

Starbucks is notoriously expensive and nobody refers to it as coffee round here. Starbucks in my first world country is considered something for hipster digital nomads. You can’t find them outside areas with tourists as everyone else is happy with “regular” coffee that’s literally 10 times cheaper.

Saying that two coffees equate to YouTube premium while using Starbucks as a metric is like saying that a car only costs a watch or two while using a Rolex as the reference watch. If you consider a Rolex to be your reference watch, cool, you’re a privileged minority.

Well, to begin with, both the watcher and the creator are clients of the platform. Both sides feel bound to it, even if both dislike it.

Then, YouTube premium is literally 20 machine coffees a month in my first world country. 15 if they’re done by someone. You seem to be speaking “privileged minority”.

Did you even consider that your formula doesn’t even work for 90% of people? 6 figure salaries are a US thing, everywhere else you get taxes to pay for irrelevant shit like health. Part of those taxes are for retirement. Those are not optional and scale with the salary from like 10% if you’re poor to like 70% if you’re rich.

At whatever age retirement is, you get a payout that’s (not linearly) proportional to how much you paid in taxes. That’s the whole of Europe. Probably more complicated or anarchic elsewhere.

Even with a top 5% salary, you’re not going to pile up all that much.

The problem is not this scheme. Is that there are not enough young people to support the elderly.

Also a curiosity about Portugal: A lot of people are starting to lie about not having a degree when they do so that they can get shit jobs more easily. Too many degrees around. (Most people go to college, even if they fail)

An homicide is an homicide before the court case for it is done. Just because some words also have legal definitions it doesn’t mean that they’re incorrectly used before the judge concluded them and the guilty party.

Maybe easier to visualise with assault. Assault happened from the moment the aggression happened, not from the moment the aggressor got convicted of it

As for the “no system is foolproof”, you’re thinking of implementations, not algorithms. An algorithm can indeed be something-proof. Most “known” algorithms are built on top of very strong mathematical foundations stating what is possible, what is not and what is a maybe.

As for the ads thing, Mozilla is not making a dime off this. It is not monetizable. They’re basically expecting that by giving advertisers a fairly “benign” way to do their shenanigans they will stop doing things the way they currently do (with per-individual tracking).

The absolutists might say that there’s no such thing as benign ads, however truth is that the market forces behind ads are big enough that you’d get website-integrity-bullshit rather ad-free web. Having tracking less ads is better than having a “this website only works in chrome” or “only without extensions” internet.

Is there any other possibility? Maybe. Is is reasonable to think that the moment tracking starts getting blocked em masse, we risk a web-integrity-bullshit +wherever-said-tracking-can-exist-only internet? I think so.

Good luck convincing Israel to fold up because I’m pretty confident you aren’t going to convince Palestinians about that. Or are you advocating for some ol’ two speed citizenship?

Well, those massive parking lots are a thing because 100% of the attendance comes in a car.

It happens that in European cities, the majority of people go to those mega-events events by public transit or Taxi.

Are you going to put parking lots just to burn up space? If that was the case, then no need for asphalt, trees absorb sound better than asphalt.

Lisbon’s big arena is in a fast to reach part of the city that is surrounded by a lot of stores and offices and basically no housing. That’s the way to do it. Is a 3 minute walk away from the subway.

Freedom of movement never was and never will be a thing outside of countries with similar standings in economy and policy.

There’s the obvious problem #1) People rushing to whoever maximizes their welfare. There’s this fine reason why plenty of illegal economic migrants do not settle for some first-world country that accepts them and keep going until they hit something like Germany.

Then you have #2) Societies do not exist without a place and no society should be forced to accept people that undermines it. France is secular and yet it allowed in plenty of people that are not. I’m not saying you must be secular to exist; I’m saying that you should not be going to a society you fundamentally disagree with and much less start imposing. And yet we both know what would happen if borders were open.

You also have #3) rich people can just buy out the nicest places and chop chop people the fuck out. A state putting up some barriers severely slows this process (which is happening anyway)

A bunch more reasons like paperwork, criminal record, ecology, yadda yadda.

With this said, if you fulfil stuff, you should definitely be able to get wherever you want. Ethnicity, social status ou whatever made up stuff should not be roadblocks. Even if it takes a year or two of screening and some sort of integration procedure.

You can’t encrypt anything without a key. This is the key. If it wasn’t in plaintext then it would be encrypted. Then you’d need a key for that. Where do you put it?

Phone OSs have mechanisms to solve this. Desktop ones do not.

It very much is plausible. Source: I live in a country that has been considered the “safest country on the world” a few times (that’s Portugal if you’re curious).

You can get into fist fights in the night zones et all and police officers are not going to care about it. Unless someone is caught in the act, nobody is going to do much as long as nothing is anywhere near lethal.

But the moment anyone has a knife, that’s going to be a trip with the officers and ends up on record. Being caught with a gun without a very good excuse is the end of the line. High chance you get to serve time over it, just for having a gun. Or anything else really.

Knuckles? Pepper spray? Stun gun? You’re likely to serve time over that. Very least, community service.

And it… Just… Works? Every time anyone annoying comes by asking for anything you can just carry on, completely ignoring the person. What exactly can they do?

A good part of those annoying fellas do so because of tourists. They know that if they sound threatening to tourists, some of them will think that they’re being robbed. They’re not. Just carry on with your life that you’re fairly guaranteed that there no such thing as a weapon anywhere close.

I’m not so sure that standard human nature is that prevalent in some countries, independently of guns.

In Switzerland everyone has guns and weirdos are not much of a thing. People aren’t even carrying them. It would be a weirdo has gun Vs you have no gun. However, given that it is publicly known that any misuse of the said guns is gravely punished (and that they treat properly people with mental health issues) that’s not a common thing.

You say you prefer relatively less armed weirdos. However prefer the solution where both of you can have lethal weapons and have to provide no justification whatsoever to carry them.

You: “Mr. officer, That hat guy, he tried to assault me, he has a gun”.
Off: “Did you?”.
Guy: “Nope”.
Off: “Do you have any proof or witnesses?”.
You: “Nope”.
Off: “Both free to go”

In a no-guns country it goes like You: “Mr. officer, That hat guy, he tried to assault me, he has a knife”.
Off: [checks for knife] “Come with me”