133arc585

joined 1 year ago
[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Read my edited footnote. I do not fully agree with the claim itself either.

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

I hate this saying. It's not explicit, and logical consequence isn't bidirectional, but it implies that those who do remember the past somehow won't repeat it. Which is blatantly false. Many people, even those who intimately know history, want to repeat it. Either because they think material conditions are just different enough to lead to a different result this time, or that the precise way the actions in the past was carried out was subpar and with tiny tweaks it would lead to a different result, etc. I do generally agree with the explicit statement[^1], but I strongly disagree with the implicit statement.

[^1]: And even on the explicit statement I still have reservations. Sometimes material conditions are different enough, or the precise manner in which actions are carried out are different enough that those who know nothing about the past aren't condemned to repeat it: what those who know nothing about the past do is only superficially similar to the past, and can have radically different outcomes.

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 36 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  1. Strong nuclear force: holds the nucleus of an atom together
  2. Weak nuclear force: responsible for radioactive decay
  3. Electromagnetic force: of charged particles
  4. Gravitational force: attractive force between objects with mass
[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Right so that's entirely meaningless. Read my comment again. I didn't say they don't steal tech, what I said was two-fold:

  1. Every country with manufacturing ability steals tech. Therefore basing whether you trust a country/company on that factor is worthless.
  2. There are some fields, such as networking tech made by Huawei, where they can't possibly be stealing tech, because they're at the forefront, ahead of all competitors.

You took the one very specific thing I didn't say in my comment (namely, that they don't steal tech), and decided to just shit out a bunch of links saying they do. Yet, you didn't address any of the points that I did make, such as saying that is a meaningless angle to look at this from.

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago (6 children)

This is why countries are banning use of their tech being anywhere near government communications.

No, that's also racism and xenophobia. They spread propaganda about supposed backdoors in network hardware, but can never actually point to any. If there's no exfiltration, you aren't "giving them access to your data".

I have zero trust with a nation that actively steals from any nation it can get away with.

Considering a lot of Chinese network hardware, specifically Huawei, is at the literal forefront of technological development, continually developing and producing the fastest devices with the highest throughput, etc., it is false to say they're just stealing their tech. They're beating out all the countries you could posit that they're stealing tech from. Moreover, if you're basing your supposed trust in a tech manufacturing company/country based on whether or not they steal tech secrets, what countries could you possible trust? The USA steals tech through (government enacted) corporate espionage against firms competing with firms in the USA[^1][^2]. You'd be hard pressed to find any country with tech manufacturing that isn't engaging in corporate espionage.

[^1]: Edward Snowden says NSA engages in industrial espionage [^2]: NSA is also said to have spied on the French economy

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (11 children)

Call that tin foil hat syndrome or whatever.

Racism. It's racism and xenophobia.

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago

From the rest of your comment history? Yes, it's entirely believable. It's more surprising that you're walking it back, really.

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

Lovely racism!

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If you support the death penalty then you believe either:

  • The government's judgements are infallible and it would never falsely execute an innocent person, OR
  • You are okay with the government executing an innocent person.

I definitely don't think they're infallible, as there are loads of cases where people are exonerated only after serving decades in prison, or after their death. And I'm definitely not okay with the government executing an innocent person.

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 92 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)
  • Decreased performance, as DRM is often hooked deep into event loops and adds non-negligible overhead.
  • Decreased privacy, as DRM often requires pinging an external server constantly.
  • Decreased security, as DRM is a black-box blob intentionally meant to be difficult to peer in to, and has been the target of attacks such as code execution vulnerabilities before.
  • If you own a game but don't have an active internet connection, DRM may prevent you from playing the game.
  • If you own a game but have multiple computers, DRM may force you to buy multiple licenses when you're only using one copy at a time (c.f., a physical CD with the game on it).
  • Eventually, a DRM company is going to go out of business or stop supporting old versions of their software; if you want to play an old game that had that DRM, you won't be able to even if you own the game.
  • &c.

DRM exists to "protect' the software developer, i.e. protect profits by making sure every copy has been paid for and to force people to buy multiple copies in certain cases. DRM never has and never will be for your (the consumer's) benefit.

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

There was also evidence that these balloons had equipment on board that did not line up with what is expected on a weather balloon.

Do you mind sharing your evidence? Because that's not what was officially reported by the Pentagon. It was reported that it had off-the-shelf components (i.e., exactly what you'd expect on a weather balloon), and didn't collect or transmit anything.

Chinese spy balloon didn’t collect intelligence as it flew over US: Pentagon:

The Chinese spy balloon that was shot down over the Atlantic Ocean in early February was built, at least partly, using American off-the-shelf parts, a U.S. official has confirmed to ABC News. [...] Later Thursday, Pentagon press secretary Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder said that the balloon not only did not transmit data back to China -- it never collected any.

You'll note that media still insists on using the phrase "spy balloon" when it was just a weather balloon. They even said as much, and they still use fearmongering phrasing because they know it serves their narrative.

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No point lying. If you check the modlog plenty of his comments get removed. You can check for yourself.

view more: ‹ prev next ›