kriops

6 ms·

1.
by kriops 5mo ago
You can not regulate either of the above into existence. What good are rhetorical questions when they are nonsensical?
2.
by kriops 6mo ago
No. Money-grab incoming. Use forgejo.
3.
by kriops 10mo ago
The deletion request was completely unrelated. I just don’t like the interaction gamification. Thanks! I have not made a single personal swipe in this entire comment tree. I have stated (implied) that certain views are not consistent with a
4.
by kriops 10mo ago
Can you, by any chance, delete my account? I have tried to do so before but it is not possible through the GUI. And I see you are associated with HN. Other than that let's be very clear that there was no personal attack. You left out t
5.
by kriops 10mo ago
The EU isn’t a state and has no military or police. As such the EU’s existence is an anecdotal answer to your question in itself: Reliance on (in particular maritime) trade. And yes, China also benefits from trade, but as opposed to democra
6.
by kriops 10mo ago
Exactly. I am Norwegian myself, and I don’t even know how many wars we have had with Sweden and Denmark. If you are getting at the fact that it is sometimes beneficial for adversaries to collaborate (e.g., the prisoner dilemma) then I agree
7.
by kriops 10mo ago
[flagged]
8.
by kriops 10mo ago
[flagged]
9.
by kriops 10mo ago
[flagged]
10.
by kriops 10mo ago
Nothing is more permanent in politics than temporary solution. As a Norwegian, for example, I am still paying a temporary 25% on all spending that was enacted as a "temporary" measure over 100 years ago. Control Theory does not wo
11.
by kriops 10mo ago
What are you saying here? It is true that VS Code is less bad in terms of responsiveness in comparison to Atom. Zed, however, is written in Rust (i.e., not Electron), and I would guess it is at least an order of magnitude more responsive
12.
by kriops 11mo ago
This particular argument is a complete non-issue if we just do “nothing” and let the price mechanism work in the energy markets. There might be a long-term and permanent contraction that reflects the physical reality of energy becoming less
13.
by kriops 1y ago
Rights are not something you enumerate, i.e., they are not a “list.” The underlying idea of God-given rights is, simply put, that your freedom ends where mine begins and vice versa. The idea, moreover, is the generalization of ethics to an
14.
by kriops 1y ago
No. Normally I would, but you are either being lazy or just plain acting in bad faith. 1. My answer is not vague. You are refusing to look up the critical definition. 2. Everything you have brought up (except for the theism bit, which is
15.
by kriops 1y ago
This is a simple fallacy. Either you accept the definition of God-given rights, which is certainly not consistent with your opening statement. Or you don’t, at which point any following argument regarding its proper usage is moot. You seem
16.
by kriops 1y ago
God-given rights refers to a certain theory of rights that does not require theism. It is a well and widely understood term whose usage should not invite “correction”. Referring to God-given rights invokes their definition, which should mak
17.
by kriops 1y ago
No, but you seem to have failed in parsing my explanation as to why it was not a valid point. As guiding questions: What is the difference between negative and positive rights? And what are the relationship to the concept of “God-given” rig
18.
by kriops 1y ago
Irrelevant. I only bring up the stochastic element because of the implicit argument that people are being victimized by gambling against their will. Since you would be extremely off-topic if you tried to extend this argument to, e.g., Danie
19.
by kriops 1y ago
Right. In other words, no one's God-given, negative rights are being infringed upon.
20.
by kriops 1y ago
It absolutely does account for that. Your entire comment is a strawman. If that is not intentional (which I suspect it is not, so no offense intended), then I believe a quick search on “God-given rights” should help you make whatever case y
21.
by kriops 1y ago
I addressed this in my original comment. What, exactly and explicitly, is your point?
22.
by kriops 1y ago
It is your right as a human to waste your life away. It is also by definition immoral regardless of moral system (so long as 'waste your life away' is an accurate assessment within said moral system), but they are completely separ
23.
by kriops 1y ago
Two word refutation: Passive smoking. I’m sure there is an argument there somewhere, and I’d love to address that if you would care to give it another go.
24.
by kriops 1y ago
Guilt by association: If, e.g., violence is a problem, then one needs to deal with the violence. In general, law-abiding citizens are—and should—be free to congregate and partake in their bad habits wherever they please. And even though ga
25.
by kriops 1y ago
Denmark's constitution recognizes the right to freedom of speech. Moreover, the right to freedom of speech is a fundamental right that exists regardless of your government's ability to recognize it. Thus, 'freedom of speech&#
26.
by kriops 1y ago
Define encryption. To help you along, you basically have two alternatives: 1. Be intentionally vague, so the definition encapsulates just about anything and can then be applied and enforced at will. This is obviously what they are going f
27.
by kriops 1y ago
As far as definitions go, that's circular.
28.
by kriops 1y ago
It is easy to ban what are currently the most popular apps for encrypted messaging. But the math is more or less trivial, to the point that this will simply kick off a cat-and-mouse game the government cannot win. And that is before stega
29.
by kriops 1y ago
Australia is dystopic in more ways than one[1], so this unfortunately does not surprise me. I probably do not have to point out the issue with the soundbite, but I am doing it anyway: The “laws” of mathematics are valid across all of existe
30.
by kriops 1y ago
Define 'encrypted app' in a way that is not just completely arbitrary and internally inconsistent.

More ›