X_Cli

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] X_Cli@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

The French gov is nothing more than a communication agency. They keep on making various announcements while doing the exact opposite. Nothing is done by this gov to actually improve LGBTQ+ rights. The Interior minister, for instance, who is responsible for law enforcement is alt-right and against LGBTQ+ rights. He is also currently accused of rape or sexual assault by several women and is known for his misbehavior toward women. In fact, several members of that gov are.

[–] X_Cli@lemmy.ml 19 points 2 years ago

Well, that's not entirely wrong: the website owner is responsible for contracting with Cloudflare in the first place.

[–] X_Cli@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago

You can ask them in lemmy.ml/c/veganism We are open to people asking honest questions.

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/343162

How many nails does that coffin need?

 

How many nails does that coffin need?

[–] X_Cli@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Yes, I knew about that and I find this an excellent feature! This is the reason why I'm asking about the "by default" behavior and not about "disabling score for everyone". I like that this is optional. I'm asking the community their thoughts about having scores hidden by default ;)

[–] X_Cli@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Maybe they just like link aggregators and the classification by communities? I don't use score-based sorting algorithms, precisely because I do not like how people vote on Lemmy.

[–] X_Cli@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I did not know that there are such options in Lemmy admin interface. That's very good! Thank you for the information

Edit: According to the admin documentation, one can indeed disable downvotes but I don't think one can hide scores for all users by default.

I checked and you are correct about beehaw. Thank you for the pointer. I'll probably subscribe to their communities :)

16
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by X_Cli@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
 

Lemmy implements a scoring system allowing people to upvote or downvote posts. You know that since you are using Lemmy :)

Score can be used to increase or lower visibility of posts, in particular when using some sorting algorithms (active, hot, top).

This can be used to increase the visibility of good quality posts, and lower that of low quality or irrelevant posts.

Yet, from what I observe, the tool is mostly used for communities to self-administer filter bubble. Some communities seem to behave like a hive mind, massively upvoting or downvoting until either the dissident is assimilated in a very Borg way, or excommunicated.

Also, scores seem to be used often to convey cheap moral judgement, without having the need to expose oneself to criticism by providing arguments to sustain their opinion.

Overall, I think scores are more toxic than useful, and I would be in favor of hiding them by default, so that new comers are not put out by them.

What is your opinion about this? What are the advantages of having the score visible by default?

Just a clarification: the question is not "should scores exist or not?". If people find value in scores, good for them. I'm not one to dictate other people preferences. :)

1
Book: Ethics Into Action (www.goodreads.com)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by X_Cli@lemmy.ml to c/veganism@lemmy.ml
 

A excellent book for all vegan activists to improve their strategy, their communication and their actual impact on animal rights, and well-being.

[–] X_Cli@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Veganism is a radical movement.

I disagree, but I can feel the radicality of a newly converted in your words. Newly converted often come from carnism and it took them a form of trauma or sudden enlightnement to take the step. Often, after that, they are very radical, hating the world for not making the same choice they did. For being blind to the horrors. Then they learn that their radical approach is toxic to the cause and thus to the animals in the long run.

I have been vegetarian for 33 years, and then vegan for 7 years, and my parents taught me antispeciesism when I was a child. I've grown my whole life (40 years), knowing that I had a different take on things than most people. I had a lot of time to think about it and I acquired a lot of experience talking about animal rights. I learned over all these years that you cannot convince anyone with radicality. And so does L214, the most prominent NGO in France for animal rights. No radical French NGO made any difference, except for the few dozens they actively saved, while millions were dying every day meanwhile.

Even if the end goal is abolitionism, having a moderate approach, and pushing for welfarist laws are pratical ethics in action. They improve the life of millions of animals, help the public to understand the issues, and simply make you audible. Screaming your hatred at the world will just make you look odd and you are helping no animal that way. None. In fact, I dare say that radical veganism is even counterproductive because it scares people away. People that would cease to be part of the problem and even people that could convince others to stop being part of it. Domino effect.

I recommand that you read Singer's book on Henry Spira's life and methods. I recommend you read Full Spectrum Resistance. This might teach you a few things about convincing people and defending a cause.

Regarding symbiosis, organisms, including animals, can live together and be mutually beneficial to each other. Do you think your microbiota is taking advantage of you? Is it exploiting you? In a way it does, because it manipulates you and influences your psyche. Yet, you would die without it. You feed it, and it keeps you alive. Do you see where I am going? Sure, the microbiota is not sentient but you are. And you are the one being exploited, if we stick to your definition of exploitation.

[–] X_Cli@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)

I'm not gonna argue, as I said, because I know that people that are as extremist as you are cannot be reasoned with. Also, you are admin and you seem to have the ban hammer quite heavy, so I'm not gonna risk it. I left this community yesterday and won't come back. Your approach is so extreme that you manage to scare away even other vegans/antispeciesists. This should give you pause as to how you are actually defending animals by having that kind of behavior.

Just a comment on that single sentence, because this seems all wrong to me:

Animal welfarism consists in the application of moral utilitarianism to individuals of other animal species.

I have no idea how you manage to conflate welfarism, utilitarianism and speciesism. Animal welfarism can and should encompass humans. Please notice how I said "If the relation between animals is symbiotic". If I had a speciesist approach because of my welfairism, I would have said something like "If the relation between humans and animals is symbiotic". Veganism is not about purity. It is about ethics and the living. By definition, utilitarianism is a branch of the philosophy of ethics. Since you said that "animal welfarism is not veganism" and you define animal welfarism as "the application of moral utilitarianism to individuals of other animal species", my understanding is that you are not seeking ethics but purity and thus missing the point entirely.

I feel like I took the bait. You can now ban me.

[–] X_Cli@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (6 children)

Animal welfarism is not veganism

I disagree. This sounds like gate keeping. For me, veganism is about being against animal exploitation. If the relation between animals is symbiotic (mutually beneficial), I personally don't think this is exploitation.

I don't want to debate about it. I've already been down that road and it is not pretty. Vegans don't win anything by tearing each other apart. But I want to offer a different vision of what veganism is to the OP.

[–] X_Cli@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

(I would appreciate if the down voters were able to express their disagreement with words. Maybe I'm wrong, but then, please do me the favor of explaining me how. Also, I'm not a SourceHut hater; I even give money to Drew every month, because I like the idea of SourceHut. I just think Drew is wrong on that matter)

13
Useless Use Of dd (www.vidarholen.net)
 

2022, people still use and make new implementations of OpenPGP. In 2015, I was already describing OpenPGP as a horror show for cryptographers. People need to move on! The format is wrong. The implementations are wrong. The mandatory ciphers are outdated. The web of trust is mostly dead since the key servers are broken.

 

A bit old, but an amazing read. Kudos to the author!

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/171118

On the account that "we are better equipped", Go will now ignore the order of the CipherSuite option, starting with Go 1.18, due this month.

The sorting logic is detailed in the code.

Several choices seem strange to me:

  • "SHA-256 variants of the CBC ciphersuites don't implement any Lucky13 countermeasures." leading to CBC-SHA1 being favored over CBC-SHA256.
  • "AES comes before ChaCha20", on the account that AES-NI is faster. They use heuristics to determine whether both ends support AES-NI and whether to prefer ChaCha20 over AES.
  • "AES-128 comes before AES-256", on the account that AES-256 is slower.

The static nature of the sorting algorithm also leads to security conundrums such as the fact that updating the Go library and recompiling programs will be required if a vulnerability is found in an algorithm implementation (e.g. Lucky13 for the CBC-SHA256 Go implementation); you won't be able to just reduce its priority by updating a config file.

What's your take on this? Can you explain some of the choices that feel strange to me?

view more: next ›