light_cone's comments

Moreover, the law literally says that contracts are considered as laws but only applicable to co-contractants (at least in France it's written like that). So it's the same thing, just with a different scope and precedence on the hierarchy of norms.

I have some of these usb keys, and I remember having remounted the device rw on linux, and the device failed with an io error when I attempted to write. So if I'm correct, the driver was configured as if the key was rw, but it failed because the hardware switch was ro.

So I believe that it is an actual hardware lock, in addition to the os having the ro/rw status info.

If someone is interested, Kanguru have faster models than the one linked (which I have too), which is a little slow by today's standard.

When you imprison someone until they become a spy in the company you're trying to buy, do you really think there is no outcome where you might gain leverage?

I would not know how that works, but I can recall a "strange" order of judicial events in the Alstom buyout by General Electric. Frédéric Pierucci was incarcerated for some weird foreign bribery charges, refused to be an FBI informant, and was released once Alstom was sold. He wrote a book about it. It really seems he was held as an economic hostage.

So when you learn about that, it's easier to think that the justice branch is much much closer to the executive branch than what it seems.

I am using it, and I find it provides good services overall. Much more flexible than traditional banks. I contacted the customer service once and it responded.

I have not used the API, but I looked at it at some point and it seemed capable of doing what you could do in the official app.

No sorry, I went on a tangent and generalized without stating it clearly.

I just wanted to argue that by my definition, we are already in a tranhumanistic (and eugenistic) society, so we should not spare ourselves these debates instead of blanket statements and be afraid of concepts.

I probably appeared as pro go-nuts-on-brain-generics, whereas I actually agree we should be very cautious. The law of unintended consequences is indeed a strong argument.

I get that, I understand very well it's a slippery slope. For me it's just a cursor, whereas I think that people pretend there is no cursor, only absolute values.

I guess it's a question of semantics. Because by reading you, using my definition of transhumanism, you're implying that wearing glasses is already a step too far (because it's using technology to improve/fix yourself). But of course I don't think that's what you believe. So clearly, these words are tainted, because we're not talking about the same thing really.

I don't know why, but the word 'eugenics' is enough to trigger a thought-terminating cliché. Maybe the GP was being tongue-in-cheek, maybe not, but it's always a strong reaction to this word.

I understand it was used as an excuse to justify genocide, but I don't understand why the concept of eugenics is viewed as profoundly immoral by itself. I get that it's a slippery slope, and that's a valid reason to ban it, but I never see it formulated that way, only a "NO! NEVER!!" non-argument.

We've always been fighting diseases, tried to better our condition, but if we're using genetics to prevent lethal diseases it's suddenly immoral? (Not saying it's what was talked about above, just using a clear cut example here). I really don't get it. I find on the contrary that not preventing horrible painful diseases on purpose, on the basis of us not wanting to feel uneasy, is what could be called immoral. I think that at least for clear cut cases, it should be debated.

It's a little bit like transhumanism: a lot of people use glasses, or prosthesis without any issues. It's already transhumanism IMO, but people do not label it that way, so that's accepted, while the word transhumanism itself is vehemently rejected.

I think it has meaning after all. I would rewrite as this: "HEX directly targeted investors globally, using advertisements placed in football stadiums (especially those involved in the English premier league). These ads boasted about an 11,500% asset price increase in 4 months"

I like to translate improbable phrasing into proper sentences. It is a fine hobby, like archeology, but on other people's mind (or maybe AI output, who knows in 2023). :)

I think you are enamoured with the idea of being neutral, like a pure-wisdom spirit above the melee, wisely noticing the hypocrisy of the west and reminding us the right for any people to live as they see fit.

Well I think this is just your ego flattering yourself.

Because this is such a clumsy false dichotomy that it's frankly hard to accept that people can actually think sincerely what you said.

How can you not see that the ancient way the talibans want to enforce is just another oppressive standard forced on the population, especially women?

What if I am an afghan woman who wants to live based on another perfectly valid ancient way of life, but different than the talibans'? Must I shut up or be killed? Who decides exactly? Whose ancient way is the most legitimate? Could it be perhaps _any_ that does not oppress to death people?

Perhaps people are just saying that anything less oppressive than this horror is what should be? Perhaps that's what people mean when they talk about human rights? And perhaps that reality has NOTHING to do with the west's hypocrisy or any misuse of the term 'human rights' you might encounter?

Yes, I think it's a fair assumption unfortunately.

"Honey, you are so important to me that I decided to dump you."

If you tried adapt the corporate wording in your everyday life, you'd be judged by everyone as one of the biggest a-hole there is, and rightly so.

I wonder the proportion of people like me who are aggravated by this bs...

Indeed, thank you, I was not aware of this example.

If I did start an open source project, I think I would do a very simple licensing that I have never encountered, like: "Dual licensing: Paid software now, and GPL starting 2032". I guess in the oss monetization list it is covered by "paid early access: Delayed open-sourcing".

The software source code is released day one, but it won't be a FOSS license until YEAR+N. The license switch will be automatic after the deadline.

That way I think I can have the best of both worlds: making sure development is paid (which is often necessary to sustain any large project) and any additional valuable development being be paid for, but also giving your customers the guarantee that they'll have an exit against vendor lock-in, and releasing in the long term to the FOSS community.

Basically I sell software normally, but commit to a future FOSS license at the same time. It's not unlike patents actually, at least what they should be.

First of all, _most_ services is not _all_ services, so you have a use case here.

Also, you could make FIDO keys that support restoring but not backing up. If you could set up a FIDO with custom random seed _as an expert option_, then you could have a secure key, and keeping the seed private would be your expert problem.

I would adopt such a solution, whereas now I don't adopt the proposed solution because I cannot add a new service while having the backup key remaining off-site.

Maybe another solution would be to be to have _absolutely all_ services accept several keys (enforced by protocol), in addition to be able to accept adding an off-site key with only its fingerprint, but without requiring to have it physically.

> But none of those drugs will result in the long-term change that you’re looking for.

Sorry to be blunt, but this is clearly the morally infused cliché of "healthy people do not take drugs because drugs are bad mkay.". Cliché which seem to automatically give people the status of the most responsible person in the room for some reason.

Well I'd like to give a rebuttal. Saying no to drugs is saying no to the risk of taking the drug, that is true. But it is _also_ saying no to the potential benefit.

If, for the sake of argument, someone took that risk at 20, but had some incredible epiphany and radically changed their life for the better during the 30 years following the experiment, you can't say in good faith that it was _bad_. You _have_ to take into account that a better quality of life was exchanged for that risk. And in my opinion, refusing to see that is not automatically the responsible position, even if it is always portrayed as such.

Exactly, you can search "motus france 2" on youtube and you'll see the tv show that existed for decades in france.

I have a similar problem, and when I finally allocate bandwidth for a project, I can't find relevant objects when I need them.

So I bought a commercial label printer, I made a web app with a database representing a tree of objects/containers with photos and search function, and I am in the process of completely inventoring my stuff (consumables, tools, books, etc).

It's very long to do the inventory, and you have to be very consistent in maintaining the current location of objects in the tree, but the power to find every physical objects as fast as a google search is incredible. When I'm finished I'll be able to start any project and fetch "that old arcane microchip module I bought once 5 years ago" instantly.

And I think not seeing the accumulated mess of dozens of stalled projects will help for my mental clarity.

Well, adding "obviously" to an argument does not add anything to the argument.

I can see how you _might_ think this some type of mental health issue, but seeing a behavior that is weird from your point of view does not make it a medical behavior automatically. It might, it might not, and you can't tell for sure.

To push another armchair diagnosis with exactly the same value, I'd say it looks someone who plays the game of life at a high level, which can sometimes looks like lunacy from the outside. But that's just like, my opinion, man.

It is sad that you would rather believe the parent has mental health issues, rather than entertain the possibility that yes, someone is actually doing something effective against powerful corrupt people, and that requires creative thinking.

To me, it echoes "Discourse on Voluntary Servitude" by La Boétie. Powerful people are just people. They are powerful because we are collectively granting them that power. This is not a case of delusion of grandeur, but a case of saying no to learned helplessness.

So thank you byecancer21 for what you're doing against corruption, from a stranger on the internet.