faktorialas

7 ms·

1.
by faktorialas 10y ago
Lithuanian here, can confirm. Quite scared of Russia, for (what I hope are) understandable reasons.
2.
by faktorialas 10y ago
States have and will routinely harass and otherwise dampen the efforts of activists, dissidents, even journalists. I think examples of that are easy to find. Furthermore, they can't really have good privacy unless everyone does. For a
3.
by faktorialas 10y ago
The problem is, you're not making a transactional choice. You're not just choosing the internet for you, you're affecting the internet for everyone. I also think assuming that you know this can't hurt you yourself is nai
4.
by faktorialas 10y ago
People that are politically interesting (for states and others) have obvious reasons to protect their privacy. You need politically interesting people to fight for your rights. You want to protect your privacy so that in the event that yo
5.
by faktorialas 10y ago
Protonmail doesn't have pop/imap/external app use. I've heard it's coming in the following months. It's great apart from that, but this is a fairly big negative if you want to use a bunch of email accounts. The
6.
by faktorialas 10y ago
Sounds like the image we should move away from, so it gets better for everyone. While I don't disagree with your previous point, I think part of the reason for OWS to do this might be to nudge people like you towards this being mainstr
7.
by faktorialas 10y ago
I don't disagree with your general point, but I'm curious, why would having a privacy-focused app be embarassing? I'm curious what kind of attitude you have for it, or what you expect some of your contacts to think of it.
8.
by faktorialas 10y ago
This comment says it's unavailable on iOS and Chrome, but there on Android: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12689695 I can back up that Chrome point, unless it has been added in a recent update. On Android, it can
9.
by faktorialas 10y ago
IM. Signal is, IMO, the most secure one that anyone's likely to convince non-nerds to use.
10.
by faktorialas 10y ago
Of course it's better elsewhere. Many companies are not under US authority. Many provide better security features. Many are not known for having terrible security, or the biggest breach of user data ever. IIRC, Yahoo has always provide
11.
by faktorialas 10y ago
Considering the way they claim to minimize the metadata stored, I wouldn't expect them to store encrypted message content after it is delivered to the client. It'd be difficult to delete metadata about a message, but still keep th
12.
by faktorialas 10y ago
Significantly more; OWS in this blog post are claiming to keep the very bare minimum. Whatsapp and Facebook, meanwhile, are sharing data to improve ads - surely they share much more than that with LE.
13.
by faktorialas 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(software) Check the metadata portion. One thing to note, this isn't surprising at all. All of the centralized IM servers can do this and, usually more. The alternatives that t
14.
by faktorialas 10y ago
The problem is, I don't think you can say that it's a form of a giving up, or a fundemental weakening of power. We are creating absurd amounts of information compared to before. Just because US Gov could access the measly amount o
15.
by faktorialas 10y ago
I don't know about willingness. There's one way to back up your point though. Philosophers learn to apply rigor in very broad situations, getting used to usisng it everywhere. Mathematicians apply it very rigorously, but mostly in
16.
by faktorialas 10y ago
Just my general experience with it when talking to young people and seeing their expression online etc. At least when it comes to the hard sciences, they may not have the patience to do them, but they sure profess to liking it. Probably dif
17.
by faktorialas 10y ago
Indeed. With regards to science, it seems like at least young people respect it, so we're going to have progress in that sense. Unfortunately, philosophy doesn't produce life-changing tech or neat gadgets, so reading philosophy th
18.
by faktorialas 10y ago
As for movies, I think it's about what makes a good plot rather than what expresses the common ideology. A benevolent AI-god won't exactly make for an exciting movie, nor will just basic progress. One could argue the same point ab
19.
by faktorialas 10y ago
People like trusting their intuitions. In many cases, they trust them so much they even deny that there's an argument to be made about their content - especially if people surrounding them share them. This leads to people being ignoran
20.
by faktorialas 10y ago
>I didn't say science said anything about conscious. Well you did say: >If this "consciousness" stuff actually interacted with the physical world, then we would, in principle, be able to observe it. But if it doesn&#x27
21.
by faktorialas 10y ago
There's all kinds of ideas about the word the Greeks used for this, eudaimonia. The translation has shifted, and they tend to not even call it happiness anymore. The new translations seem to mean something more like what you note her
22.
by faktorialas 10y ago
If you're talking about studies in psychology and why they perceive happiness as such, it's because they're not philosophers. They're merely trying to learn things about something that is actually important, even if not
23.
by faktorialas 10y ago
And all that empirical stuff doesn't matter when it comes to the actual theorem. The proof does. As is the case with tons of math that don't have empirical evidence. That's why it's math and not science. My original poin
24.
by faktorialas 10y ago
The author clearly worried about many of the same issues affecting his own democracy, and wrote about it too. It's not just a parody of totalitarianism if the author describes the same issues in democracy. Totalitarianism is absolutely
25.
by faktorialas 10y ago
I mean that there is no known empirical method for receiving a datapoint about the mind. We can know things about the brain, we can ask people to talk about their experiences, but we can't receive the actual contents of the experiences
26.
by faktorialas 10y ago
Where do you put that test, though? The theory itself is not empirical, nor is the proof, nor is anything used in the theorem. Even if the idea came through empirical means, the theory itself isn't empirical.
27.
by faktorialas 10y ago
>Because I'm not convinced "consciousness" is a meaningful concept that actually exists. No one has the slightest idea how to define it or what it really means, so it's a very vague non-precise term at best. But I acc
28.
by faktorialas 10y ago
>It seems quite obvious to me that "consciousness" is caused by complex algorithms being run by the human brain. Why "consciousness" in quotes? You don't have it? Are you a bot? And where is the obviousness from?
29.
by faktorialas 10y ago
I think he means consciousness as a factor in QM, not generally. I don't know for sure tho.
30.
by faktorialas 10y ago
Well it is nonscientific, it's outside the bounds of science. Doesn't mean it's irrational.

More ›