That "rape aside" is doing a lot of heavy lifitng there and conveniently sweeps away the need to actually address anything that isn't the "had sex, your fault" narrative you seem to be espousing here.

Especially given that there is little to no effort being given to exemptions of any kind.

Nobody is denying that sex is how babies are (usually) made, i mean apart from the "this book is the literal truth" christians i suppose.

or you're trolling, in which case, congratulations...i guess.

I'm having trouble parsing this so i might be commenting on something that isn't there.

Current edge is a chrome re-skin with some addons, I'd put good money on it not being google free.

If you care about data going to nefarious places you probably shouldn't be using either.

Blocking someone because they don't agree with you telling them they are "absolutely wrong" isn't civil or rational discourse. Unless you meant something different?

To me this reads as:

< preemptive justification for saying something controversial and/or indefensible >

< controversial statement with no justification or reasoning >

"Not going to explain because it's obvious"

Probably not how it was intended, but that's some weak sauce

you mean the faces that are already posted by the FBI for everyone to see ?

Brazil (1985)

Or perhaps decide that interaction with such a person isn't viable.

There is no requirement to adopt others particular eccentricities or needs, choosing to not engage can also be a valid choice.

There are of course potential downsides to this, but if each person is unwilling to adhere to a common contract of communication then the cessation of communication is a reasonable response.

Unless you're a big corp, then fuck with impunity but make sure to pay the "cost of doing business" tax.

If the tax is too high, just buy some lobbyists or political system equivalent.

You mean cats? Are they not obligate carnivores?

Indeed, the paradox of tolerance is real https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

At least for me and by the sounds of it, you.

Absolutely within your rights, depending on the instance you are on and if the rules are enforced i suppose. Same as anything anybody else says. One of the main draws of the fediverse, no ?

I doubt "Absolutely wrong" would be read as "shut up and listen" in most contexts but i could be in the minority here.

Blocking people who persist is a simple mechanism to weed out anyone who refuse to listen to logic or feelings on a matter when they don't align with their own.

Agreed , i do it too, frequently.

Would you rather I be blunt and simply tell idiots to "Shut the fuck up"? Because that's definitely not civility. Don't try to argue semantics here; it's ugly and unnecessary.

i don't have an opinion on how blunt you should be with people, your call.

Don't try to argue semantics here; it's ugly and unnecessary.

Arguing semantics is ugly when done in bad faith ,but i'm not trolling or baiting you , i just happen to think word choice is important in some situations. (for a given value of important, i mean it's not life or death here or anything)

In this case i (personally) read it as "I block people who don't agree with my very well reasoned opinion, even after i graciously explained it to them, they just won't listen to me and keep replying".

and most of that comes from the use of the term "Absolutely wrong" which is an absolute, by definition and leaves no room for other opinions or options.

As you said, you can use whatever words you like, at least one person thinks your use of absolutes in statements detracts from your otherwise cogent arguments, do with that what you will.

Also money

Isn't the whole point of this article to point out that no, in fact, you won't ?

Less volume perhaps, certainly less obvious, but not "without".

Each to their own, I too have pre-blocked on occasion.

I probably wouldn't hold myself responsible for angry internet people, if I'm engaging in good faith and they get angry that's not on me, trolls gonna troll, but again each to their own.

Describe what you mean by "freedom of speech" here, I'm assuming you don't mean the first amendment because that only applies in the US and only for protection against congress ( the US congress ofc ).

Given the above I'm not sure what line you mean here, libel/slander?

You can only point out facts that exist, well, you can technically point out whatever you like and call it "fact" i suppose, but it's not really accurate unless it's an actual fact.

Unless accuracy isn't what you were going for ?

In case you were wondering : https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fact

I don't know about the fairness of this particular company but by that rationale nothing can ever be fair, just by existing we increase the suffering. Its how the world is.

Think headphones jacks don't cause suffering at some point in the chain?

Not that I'm disagreeing, just not sure how things would get named under this specific scheme.

Does it assume that it's generally understood that everything is a little harmful in some way, so as long as you don't claim otherwise, it's cool or would everything need to be measured on some sort of average harmfulness scale and then include the rating in the title.

Like "Horrendously harmful Apple" or "Mildly harmful Colgate"

A bit hyperbolic perhaps.

Genuinely not trying to start a fight, actually interested in what you think would be a good way of doing this, as I've occasionally pondered it myself and never come up with a good answer.

Incidentally, this is one of the core plotlines to later seasons of "The good place"

I agree with all of this, I was just pointing out that common understanding (read: my own) of civil and rational discourse doesn't usually include immediately blocking people who don't agree to you telling them they are wrong in absolute terms.

I could be wrong however, happens a lot.

Edit: that is not to day I don't personally block people I think are being arseholes, i 100% do, I just don't claim to be doing so in the defence of civil or rational discourse.

If you’re using windows you’re already giving Microsoft data so may as well

While technically correct, to me this sounds like "You haven't managed to stop some of the tracking, why not just give them everything?" which is personally not my approach.

Not to say that my approach isn't effort and is even effective, but I'd much rather limit the damage in the ways i can rather than give up entirely. I can see why someone wouldn't want to put in that kind of effort though and i don't fault them for it.

Edge uses chromium not chrome, I would hazard a guess there’s much less data harvesting going on in base chromium given it’s open source and people can see exactly what they collect

Open source yes, but not necessarily free from data-harvesting.

The fact that un-googled chromium (and others like it) exist implies that straight up chromium being open source isn't a guarantee they aren't doing consumer-hostile shit anyway.

Though, yes, it's almost certainly less than full-fat chrome.

Also levels for fecal matter in most things that come from agriculture.

Milk is weird, I don't disagree, but governmental regulations on levels of "safe contamination" isn't a milk only thing.

I'm talking anecdotally and from my experience here, not as an absolute.

I will upfront admit i am somewhat biased against authority in general, especially what i perceived to be unearned authority (if you wish to be a respected authority, earn it and continue to do so) In this case however I'm talking about "authority" in a professional sense somewhat measured against the success or failure of particular projects or initiatives.

For the most part i agree with you but it seems like you are using the term "anti-authoritarian" as an absolute, as in being against authority is bad in all cases.

At a lot of companies "Critical thinking and standing up for your ideas" is considered anti-authoritarian because the company culture doesn't allow for that kind of autonomy of thought (by design or long term evolution usually).

Your example works in the context of a company that works in a manner that promotes/encourage that kind of person, not all of them do. My personal experience and that of my circle of colleagues and acquaintances, I'd guess that percentage is around 30/70 with the 70% being companies that either actively or passively punish/discourage both of those types of employees.

Which i'd imagine is what @bouh meant when they said "But good employees will hate your company, because you consider them like bad ones"

Anti-authoritarianism is a bad trait. when the authority in question is doing the correct things (for whatever definition of correct you wish to use). "Anti-authoritarianism" and "Critical thinking and standing up for your ideas" are not mutually exclusive.

As with most things it's contextual.

To clarify , there is an aurora client for f-droid. https://gitlab.com/AuroraOSS/auroradroid

The OP mentions aurora store by name so they are probably not talking about the f-droid wrapper. Also if f-droid breaks rule 4 AuroraDroid almost certainly does.

I wouldn't expect logical thinking to be a strong characteristic in someone who'd threaten kids over a videogame.

Cost per GiB is higher and long term reliability is lower in most scenarios.

The failure scenarios for spinning rust tends to work better with large storage arrays as well.

Not all absolutes, but enough of them are true on a common enough basis that spending the extra on SSD's isn't usually worth it.

If you want some real in depth explanations there's probably a datahoarder community somewhere or reddit if you are so inclined.

That's reasonable

The only "legal" thing you can do

Second, at least here in Germany Telegram has become the main platform for conspiracy nuts and antidemocratic organizations. Someone who is “very active” on Telegram is most certainly an idiot.

Bet the majority of them drive cars as well.

I read your reply as stating that the only outcomes could be "argue and make things worse" or "don't do that", a negative and a neutral respectively.

I perhaps read only the words and not the intent, I think we are may be saying the same thing.

In case we are not :

Not engaging actively frees someone up to do literally anything else, which could overall be more positive than just the prevention of the negative.

In addition some people might consider the avoidance of the argument itself to be a positive rather than just maintaining a neutral position.

I mean, yes? That's a good summation.

The part where you get to call something "open source" by OSI standards (which I'm pretty sure is the accepted standard set) but only if you adhere to those standards.

Don't want to adhere, no problem, but nobody who does accept that standard will agree with you if you try and assign that label to something that doesn't adhere, because that's how commonly accepted standards work, socially.

Want to make an "open source 2 : electric boogaloo" licence , still no problem.

Want to try and get the existing open source standards changed, still good, difficult, but doable.

Relevant to this discussion, trying to convince people that someone claiming something doesn't adhere to the current, socially accepted open source standards, when anybody can go look those standards up and check, is the longest of shots.

To address the bible example, plenty of variations exist, with smaller or larger deviations from each other, and they each have their own set of believers, some are even compatible with each other.

Much like the "true" ^1^ open source licences and the other, "closely related, but not quite legit" ^2^ variations.

^1^ As defined by the existing, community accepted standards set forth by the OSI

^2^ Any other set of standards that isn't compatible with ^1^

edit: clarified that last sentence, it was borderline unparseable

Here is one example

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, adopted during the French Revolution in 1789, specifically affirmed freedom of speech as an inalienable right.[6] Adopted in 1791, freedom of speech is a feature of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

I mean you can just find in page for "United States"

Also , not american (a good example of an actual fact) and i very specifically ruled out the typical american interpretation of freedom of speech.

The fact that i was asking you what interpretation you were using implies i recognise more than just one, so even if i were american (again, not american) the question would still stand.

I also , very specifically asked what interpretation you were using for your argument, but it seems we've skipped over the questions entirely and gone straight to factually incorrect personal attacks.

I'll just assume you don't have an answer to the actual question given no attempt was made to actually answer it, or perhaps you think your position is unassailable and an answer is beneath you.

Regardless, good luck with fact pointing i suppose.

edit: added answer to your question

The way that sentence is structured implies otherwise, but that could be a misinterpretation on my part, I suppose.

What if the life I'm imagining I'm protecting is one where I have the option of choosing a platform/application that isn't scraping the absolute dregs of the barrel to squeeze out that last bit of profit margin.

That's a win win right?

ah, apologies, i wasn't implying that your 'source' was weak, it was clear you were stating a personal opinion so no 'source' needed.

I was using a slang term : https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=weak+sauce

I was implying your argument was weak, built on a shaky foundation of personal opinion stated as universal fact.

Did you mean to reply to me? Or the person above?

There shouldn’t be any of the Googled parts of Chrome in Edge, just as there aren’t any Googled parts of Chrome in stock Chromium.

There are at the very least googled parts of chromium in it though : https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium

Unless google have significantly changed the way they package and build chromium recently there are still google web service dependencies and i believe binary blobs (though they may have changed the closed source blob policy iirc)

Of course, you are now giving your data to Microsoft instead of Google, which isn’t really a win or a lose. If you’re not paying for the software, you’re either using FOSS, or the software is paid for by selling access to you and your computer.

Indeed

The book is great as well, there is also a prequel book "The Boy On The Bridge"

"It's not libre / free as in freedom so it's wrong".

I think it's more "It's not libre / free as in freedom so it's not open source, don't pretend it is".

The "wrong" part would be derived from claiming its something that it isn't to gain some advantage. I'm this case community contributions.

There's not a handwaving distinction between open source and not, there are pretty clear guidelines.

Other than cat milk, possibly? I've honestly no idea.

But " just eat/drink plants " will kill a cat right?

Depends on how you define 'cost' I suppose, but seems like the trade off isn't worth it for you, which is fair.

Some might value the perceived benefits much higher than you do.

For me specifically, the setup and config oftentimes is what I'm doing with the computer, the learning and knowledge gained from the practice is what I'm after, which is good because it's significantly less fun than it used to be.

Admittedly mine is probably a non-standard case and it ties in with other things in my life.

Condolences on your loss.