While unique and somewhat gratifying that you can build a business with just a chance at a good domain and some internal motivations, do you find yourself adding value over other means of onion sales?
Interesting discussion. Certainly, some of this fails simply by not agreeing upon what is ethical. For instance, people can claim that blocking ads is an unethical action, but if the ads themselves are attempting illegal things (and some are), then blocking ads has a quite legitimate and useful purpose.
Well, it's important when measuring which nations are most responsible for climate change. So we'll see the list topped by smaller countries with energy-intensive industries such as Qatar, as well as some small Western developed countries like Ireland also performing poorly. It helps provide a clearer picture of the climate change initiatives these governments should be pursuing, which I promise you matters to the industries themselves.
Your facts don't match your premise. It helps us to understand, at an individual level, which individuals are more responsible than other individuals. Individuals don't rule the Earth; nations do. Looking at the data by nation rather than per capita in fact is the data that tells us which nations are most responsible for climate change. Humanity is destroying earth, not individual nations. If the western world cuts its emissions to 0 and the eastern world laughs and doubles its emissions in response we all still burn. The total emissions of humanity are all that matter in the context of climate change.
How do you explain the fact that Western European economies perform so well on a per-capita basis of emissions versus the US and Canada then? I do agree with some of your points on the Western world vs the East & that it will require homogenous action. But we in the West are in a position to lead the way, both in terms of actual implementation and or R&D for more cost-effective use of renewable energy in the future. The rest of the world will follow.
We're in the 21st-century dude. Point to a time where access to foreign aid, other financial assistance, and tech that would enable economic prosperity on renewable energy is as easy as it is today.
Foreign aid and other financial assistance coming from polluting countries is neither zero-emissions, nor sustainable. Nor is it a probable route to prosperity. Look at the nations that have received significant foreign aid over the decades. How prosperous are they?
There are three basic camps among people who study foreign aid, if the goal is to lift countries out of poverty: 1) it doesn't work, and creates dependency instead. 2) it doesn't work, but that's because we need more of it. 3) it doesn't work, but if we try more ways of delivering aid, we can find something that does.
Tech is becoming available - not nearly proven to be sufficient, but progressing.
As I said, it requires proof, because there is no country that has progressed from poverty to prosperity without emissions.
IMHO, you should attach the pollution directly with corporations and money. Then you could readily tell which companies and industries are pushing "externalities" on their local populations and "poisoning the well" as it were.
I enjoy that people can downvote without as much as a rebuttal. Cowards! =)
Am I wrong in stating that onion traffic is watched more heavily than non onion traffic? And honestly it's never the message itself that is watched but the metadata, or so they say. So as long as they get your metadata, and it still seems reasonably possible, nothing has really changed.
It sort of is a reason to use it more often though, no? If ordinary people start using the protocol, it helps to obscure the activity of journalists or other targeted groups.
If you're not worried that someone has hacked your device to get your plaintext, then this probably isn't useful.
This seems to be specifically designed for people who are worried that their communications device has been pwned over the internet. So, people who are under fairly targeted, active surveillance.
Hence requiring three physically separate computers and data diodes at each end, to try and physically prevent attacks over the network.
Just to jump in on the part about metadata vs the message itself. I saw a very interesting talk a couple years ago by an EFF lawyer, who explained this well.
The way I remember it being explained, is in the US metadata had particularly poor legal protections compared to the message content. This is what gave the government any sort of legal basis to claim mass surveillance was legal, compared to say recording and indexing every message from every american. The context of the talk was about cloud and data sovereignty, and making the case that it isn't unsafe to store data in the US with the revelations at the time.
I don't think the talk was recorded, I wish it was, because I think that was the best description I've seen from a legal perspective on why the surveillance programs were targeting metadata and not contents.
I'm also willing to bet the personal attacks are kept to a bare minimum at Mastadon, where as with Twitter, you just have be idk...opposed to one popular political thing publicly to be regularly attacked and harassed.
How much of that is just because there aren't as many people there though? Both in the lack of enough people to make a critical storm of people and just not enough people to form an audience for that kind of action. I doubt that would remain the same if Mastodon took off and became a huge thing.
