Technical problems and political problems can be related, and discussing one in the context of the other can be useful.
LemoineFairclough
joined 1 year ago
OpenSource is preferable whenever possible, but as in anything else, fanaticism is harmful when a good proprietary soft offers a better solution
I think an engineering perspective is useful: we want to solve problems, but different people have different problems, and each person cares about each of their problems to a different extent. If one person thinks their problem is that a relevant amount of their income depends on proprietary software, then the solution is substituting free software to replace proprietary software they depend upon. If another person doesn't depend on proprietary software for their income, but thinks it's a problem that their thermostat runs proprietary software, then the solution is still to substitute free software to replace proprietary software (or to replace the thermostat entirely). However, if someone wants to increase their income tenfold and using proprietary software will accomplish that (and using free software will not), then the solution is to use proprietary software.
It's probably better to help people learn and understand how to use free software than to encourage them to use proprietary software, since free software is probably easier to maintain as someone's situation changes, but there might be some situations where the best solution for someone involves using proprietary software.
I believe these are relevant: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html
Of particular relevance is "Resurrecting projects": if you have access to "open source software" but are denied access to install or run modified versions of the software, the access is not particularly useful.
For posterity, I see that another place this person has been asked for a source is https://lemmy.world/comment/13801385
They might be trying to express that the Matrix protocol makes it easier for Israel to spy on someone using it. That idea came up somewhat often about 2 years ago, but I don't know many relevant facts. It's also common for people to say that the CIA and Israel cooperate, so that might be the connection to the CIA.
As for Signal, I am greatly annoyed that Signal requires your phone number for registration. Some people justify the centralization of Signal by saying that using a centralized network means that everyone using the network is using the same (good) security practices, and I've been told that the developers for Signal periodically express that they're trying to remove that requirement, but I still try to avoid using Signal (or any networks that I can't access without involving a phone number). The lack of progress on removing the requirement of your phone number from Signal (and the lack of information on where any centralized infrastructure is located) invites ideas about conspiring with the CIA.
Despite any uncertainty or discomfort, I defer to https://www.privacyguides.org/en/real-time-communication/ and https://soatok.blog/2024/07/31/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-signal-competitor/ to determine what methods of communication might be suitable for me to use.
I don't think this is correct. Consider what you see from using sh -c -- 'var="a " && printf "%s\n" "${var}"-z'
If "${var}"-z resulted in two arguments instead of one, I'd see "a" and "-z" on different lines, but I see them on the same line, which means they are treated as a single argument.
Reality is the matter we act upon, using energy.
I believe it is your responsibility to properly use energy you control. Moreover, you will always have excess energy that you need to dispose of somehow (living things need to collect more energy than is absolutely required, or they risk death).
Note that a collection of energy that is expended improperly is called a "bomb".
Are there ways to have political experience without holding an office position?
If the only way to have political experience is holding an office position, there will come a time when the only people you can vote for are dudes with no political experience: eventually some council member or city mayor will die and nobody with "actual experience" will campaign.
Do you just not apply this metric to local offices, or to people who have held a local office position?
This is the full first paragraph (it expresses that Donald Trump spent $750 million not $7):
Kamala Harris spent over $1.2 billion on a failed campaign, and the Democrat Party now owes $20 million. After PACs and other funds are added up, it will potentially come to over $2 billion spent. Donald Trump spent $750 million.
To be fair, some people might say "Yes, I voted for Donald J. Trump".
Trump actually had some political experience before 2015 though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_career_of_Donald_Trump#1988_presidential_election
There was an interesting experiment that suggests that couples who have similar objectives regarding money are fine with using a joint account (or even using only one spouse's account rather than using two individual accounts), but people who have a spouse who has a very different attitude towards money will avoid using a joint account (and will avoid depositing money to their spouse's individual account) even if their individual account has a lower interest rate.
More information is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5ro4x1r16Q&list=PLUl4u3cNGP620R91K4KP_fO4l3eeK5lDn&index=19&t=3707s
In general, I think that asking your spouse to use a joint account for income and a joint account for expenses is a good idea since it provides transparency: that gives both partners a record of what the income of the partnership was, and makes it equally easy for both partners to check whether bills have been paid. As long as that happens, it's probably okay if you want to split up the income to individual accounts when the money isn't needed to pay bills and later redirect it to the account(s) used to pay bills when it's needed.