Coming soon

Not to my phone it’s not!

Or their hills that spew smoke 24/7 (because they’re on fire).

Missing no chances to be complete pieces of shit.

One thing to note is that the campaign to make him into a ‘broken’, ‘damaged’ individual is well underway in the media. There’s nothing positive about being well-adjusted to a harmful system, and being broken by a harmful system is not a personal failing.

Is he going to be a perfectly polite, mild-mannered person in court? Maybe not. But don’t let yourself be tricked into the narrative that this discredits his reasoning, or into thinking his actions are the result of some personal failing rather than a reasonable reaction to a harmful system.

He’s really out here raising the bar each day…

I wanted to ask, “what exactly is ‘radical’ on the Left?”, but I think it’s very clear that you’re coming from a viewpoint that is pretty well steeped in right-wing propaganda.

There is a fundamental issue at play here with your starting argument, which is the labeling of an affirmation of existence, e.g. “trans women are women” as an ideological position. To argue anything else is, by definition, to deny their existence. If trans women are not women, then they are not trans women, ipso facto. Denying someone’s identity is, no matter how you cut it, a position of dehumanization.

If I told you that you are not actually whatever gender you identify as, and I got enough people to do the same, you’d be rightfully angry and upset. That you clearly do not have to contend with that reality makes it clear why you are apparently comfortable taking that stance towards others.

There is no 10 / 10 / 80 division of power or ideology; there’s literally no factual basis for claiming that 80% of people are politically unaligned. The only purpose in that fabrication is to make a “both-sides” argument a la “Enlightened Centrism”. Right-wing anti-LGBT ideology is a massively powerful and widespread influence, that encompasses most of the religious Christian populace. To claim they are somehow equivalent to the ~2.5% of people who are LGBT+, or that the pro-LGBT Left are actually 10% and the anti-LGBT right-wingers are 10%, is ridiculous.

Lastly, the most basic, core tenet of Feminism is “equality between genders”. If someone believes that any tenet of feminism advocates inequality between genders, they have fallen prey to right-wing propaganda. If that equality is either threatening or unacceptable to someone, it should raise a ton of eyebrows.

a lot of men in general are not ok with the feminists and LGBT people preaching

But they are okay with non-feminists and anti-LBGT people “preaching”? And can you clarify who are you referring to when you say “radical people”? Is that meant to be feminists and LGBT people?

And you believe that it’s not that the Right has succeeded in pushing anti-LGBT propaganda onto young white men so much that it has tipped them towards that stance, but rather that it is genuine backlash by young white men against LGBT beliefs?

That isn’t a tenet. A tenet is a specific belief, like, “Jesus is the son of God”, to use a Christian example. I am asking, because given that LGBT is a descriptive label for a group and not a prescriptive belief system/ ideology, I am dubious that you can list an ideological tenet.

Can you explain a tenet of LGBT ideology?

Thank you, this is super informative!

So first off, I think it’s safe to assume that the article is not about going and removing IPv4 on your company’s corporate networks for a month, so I’ve been speaking in regards to home internet service.

NAT is not a firewall, but in normal use by the average home internet user it is a means to prevent computers outside of their network from reaching computers inside the network without ports being forwarded on the router, or the internal machine initiating the connection. If you do not have a firewall on the devices, and they are not behind a NAT gateway/router, then they are by default exposing ports. There’s no inherent guarantee that a router has a firewall configured properly, or has it enabled.

I’ve never seen NAT in combination with IPv6 and I’ve seen plenty of deployments at our customers.

I’m interested in how this works. In a normal IPv4 scenario for home internet users, you are assigned a single IP for your router by your ISP, and internal addressing is usually handled by router-resident DHCP automatically. In the deployments you’re seeing, are ISPs handing out /120 blocks to each router? Does that require the ISP to have access to alter your home router, or do customers configure the DHCP themselves (which seems unlikely to scale)?

I admittedly did not read the original Mastodon post from nixCraft about the purpose of No NAT November, but surely it’s not just about moving to IPv6? You can (and usually would) still do NATing with IPv6. You don’t want every device to be internet-exposed, but still want them to be able to access the internet (and who wants to configure internet-defensive firewall rules on all their internal home hosts)?

There’s a reason that FD00::/7 exists.

You can essentially achieve this with some routers with a “DMZ” network segment/ device, so all incoming requests to your external IP get forwarded to it automatically. You don’t even need to disable NAT if you set it up well.

Better than a bow warning.

Something the article doesn’t clarify is whether this is meant to only to apply to kids in Australia. Normally that would be obvious, except that Australia already has tried to demand social media companies remove content even for non-Australian users on the basis that Australians could bypass geo blocking with VPNs. If age checks are location/ IP based, they could make the same (bad) argument.

There is a big difference between saying 2 people have shared values, and saying that 2 people have similar political views, goals in life, etc.

“They both want a legal path to citizenship for immigrants”

Sure, but one group only wants that for a small number of specific types of immigrants (e.g. high “value” immigrants with specialized skills), and another group wants that for basically anyone who isn’t a rapist (I am in the second group, to be clear).

“They both want their kids to have good opportunities in life”

But one sees that as a zero-sum proposition, where someone else’s kid getting a good job means their kids can’t get that job, and see that as a normal part of life, and another group will see it as a failure to actually provide on the promise of that opportunity.

“A majority of people acknowledge anthropocentric climate change”

But one group is unwilling to change legislation in ways that will overtly impact their lifestyles in order to counter it, and another wants massive legislative updates in order to rein in the (lifestyle) companies most responsible.

If I had to put a label to the problem, if say it’s an intrinsic issue of individualism versus collectivism.

If you abstract end goals/ values high enough, everyone wants the same thing, but that is hugely deceptive to the reality of our divisions, which are about what those values should look like in implementation.

Had us in the first half, not gonna lie…

I actually love my foldable Razr. I never could afford one as a kid, and the smaller form-factor is actually really nice.

Basically yes, a chatbot and the ability to do simple actions (agents). So in their fantasy universe, instead of clicking on Firefox and typing a query in the search bar, you’d ask the desktop to search for something, and it would do those steps.

That’s all just an excuse though, to explain why they need to collect all your local data. :P