I think it is spoof-resistant from the sound of it? You giving a valid proof-of-region via one of their circuit designs provides proof of your region but does not give your exact location, from the sounds of it.

I’ll get back to you after I’ve read through it.

We have groups like !mensliberation@lemmy.ca available for talking about men’s issues. The problem is that these groups often attract users who explicitly want to blame the issues faced by men, mostly or entirely on women. This derails the conversation similarly, and robs men of the autonomy to improve their situation, since if women are entirely to blame then there is little men can do to help themselves than pressure women to change (a bad solution). Plenty of users there try to shut that kind of toxicity down there, luckily. That does not stop that kind of interaction, though.

Think about the similar history of the Incel movement being hijacked by misogynists.

There are issues which both genders cause for each other, but there many more issues which every gender causes for themselves as well. It is best that we all own those issues we cause at the same time that we find solutions (for both internal and external issues) which don’t cause issues for others. Otherwise we’ll just continue in a war of the sexes.

This is potentially gender construct and sexism getting directly in the way of advocacy against real issues. Women start a protest advocating against a very real issue they face, by women for women, and it is spun as a direct attack on men. Same thing happens for men’s advocacy.

“…For the Master’s tool will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change. And this fact is only threatening to those women who still define the master’s house as their only source of support…” - Audre Large, in “Master’s Tools Will Never Take Down the Master’s House”

I don’t think most would blame many women for the practices they do in public to stay safe, despite the behavior explicitly being sexist. This is because we understand that in absence of these kinds of behaviors, women do actually get prayed upon, most often by men. It’s the reality of a dangerous world. however, we get angry when the statements and phrases used to justify these behaviors are said aloud.

What we fail to acknowledge is that that same kind of victimization is possible to a guy. Most guys would find the idea of deliberately using the bathroom at the same time as their friend as weird, possibly even girly. Machismo stereotypes and trying to conform to manliness actively makes men more vulnerable .

We also downplay women being violent, yet again a gender stereotype which not only lets women get physical in public, but actually also makes women easier to dismiss when they’re angry and yelling. This not only lets women get away with toxic behavior, but robs them of being taken seriously at other times.

These are both issues caused by gender, which is also actively defining how advocacy happens and creates an arbitrary divide.

That is very true. Often, it is reactionaries coming in trying to deny the existence of those issues blocking progress, not advocates for either. There are many actively trying to stop the conversation, and those very same individuals actively pose as ‘advocates’ while spitting vitriol. “There’s nothing wrong with how you act, it’s all just those progressives faults! No, you don’t need any help, it’s all fake!” This is explicitly just to shut the conversation down and strengthen the divide between gender advocates.

I understand the anger at the statements. They are visceral and immediately labelling. I’ve found that it is good to understand these taglines as simplified mantras, such as “don’t talk to the police”. It is meant as a heuristic for women’s safety, and so long as you understand that you yourself aren’t dangerous, the tagline does not apply to you. It also lets you know exactly where women are coming from: why they only use the restroom in groups, why they aren’t going to give you an outright answer most of the time, and why they will keep their distance until they know you.

I’d argue that these behaviors should not be gender-coded and should be practiced by both men and women, and that vilification of violent outbursts , and similar sexist tropes, should also not only apply to men. It is explicitly sexism which puts this barrier up, where women being violent is downplayed, and men who use women’s playbooks are viewed as less masculine.

These are issues of the same coin, which is a divide created by both genders applying different stereotypes to one another and then operating based on those stereotypes

I think it is most often when these conversations happen online that vocal reactionaries try to derail the conversation. More often than not, local and private dialogues I’ve been apart of and around tend to be more civil. In fact, both men and women seem to be on the same side when they voice their issues to each other face-to-face. I think cameras can also sour the situation, since it can put people on edge to be recorded.

At the same time, while there is a massive amount of people who get behind feminist movements and those who back counter-feminist movements, there is very few of those same counter-feminists who seem to actually ever participate in man wellbeing support infrastructure, hence why that infrastructure does not materialize. It seems that a good portion of folks only seem to pipe up as a direct counter to women trying to advocate for themselves, and then are silent and frugal when men are trying to advocate for themselves non-adversarily. I’d argue there are many people who are trying to attack both as they try to uphold the status quo.

We saw this reactionary behavior against feminist advocacy during Gamergate, as a great example - specifically when talking about the events related to Anita Sarkeesian’s ‘Tropes vs Women in Video games’. I went back and watched that series, and overall the points are fair criticisms of videogame writing (and honestly tropes in media in general). I don’t think that anything Anita pointed out was even that vilifying either. The overall response, however, was very toxic and dismissive, and was paired with a harassment campaign.

We saw a similar backlash from a vocal minority for most subsequent feminist actions surrounding cases of sexual abuse such as “Me Too” being countered by protests such as the “HimToo” movement. There’s no reason both these conversations couldn’t happen but it always seems that they only ever show up at the same time, and try to steal each others thunder.

We could also talk about the Depp v Heard court case, which had extreme levels of toxicity across the board, with large portions of folks on either side choosing to view one side as exclusively as a lying abuser and the other as completely exalted of any blame when what was being shown was an relationship full of mutual toxicity.

I could see this being directly out of someone’s personal copy, in which case it’s most likely highlighted for if they revisit.

Correct. there was actually a period of time when trees had no predators or scavengers that could break down their body matter. They actually likely caused mass extinction events during that time.

Sources: Hank Green talking about it (just a fun video, I wouldn’t take it as gospel necessarily)

IFL Science article (I cross-referenced this with multiple other articles and it seems to talk about a cempletely different mechanism for mass extinction to occur)

We don’t need a blockchain for that.

Having multiple servers which store file checksums would have much less overhead, would be easily repeatable and appendable, with no need for unnecessary computational labor. Linux mint currently uses the checksum process for verifying that an ISO downloaded is not altered in any way, and it can work for any file (preferably not humongous files).

Strive for K.I.S.S. whenever possible.

That is per capita my guy. They emit more per person, but when you’ve only got 5 families in 10 square miles, getting them to emit less is fuckall in comparison to everyone in a city emitting less.

Roads in rural new England are most often publicly funded, and are connected into a network of roads and are for transit, so rural roads are in fact a public transit network. I get that you mean trains and buses, though.

Rural roads are just expensive, period. Putting electric cars on them would additionally shorten their lifespan, so I fail to see how either public transit or electric cars are supposed to help. Plus, rural folks are not major emitters, so it doesn’t really make much sense to even try to find meaningful emission savings there.

This convo has gone on for centuries at this point. The Brain in the Jar, the teleportation conundrum, Thesius’ ship, it’s all already been covered over and over. people like you still keep crawling out of the woodwork thinking you know better than every philosopher that already waxed over this problem ad nauseum.

Your ‘continuous self’ is just as worthless as a concept. The idea that your ‘sense of being the same person’ is being held together by being apart of your plumbing just as much of an illusion. It’s worthless.

To elaborate, you are not the brain. You are the observer, the thing which exists as a byproduct of the brain’s processes, perhaps even a process yourself within. There’s also plenty of times when you will lose time other than sleep, like concussions, getting blackout drunk, panic attacks, and after those times you have no memory of making decisions or acting in your own accord, but you were. You, the observer, were absent while the brain kept working. So where were you?

You act as though you’re sure you are still the same observer as the one who went to bed. That is completely unsubstantiated. You may have just been born into your body when you awoke today, and will only have until your body falls back asleep again before you cease to exist, replaced by another process that thinks itself is you, another observer.

And if ‘you’ one day woke up in a digital world, like our own, it’s you’d be none the wiser, because your self is simply a collection of processes and memories. It’s arbitrary. It’s all dust. There’s not some special ‘continuity’ that keeps you alive somehow.

What does maintaining continuity of consciousness look like to you? As in you are able to talk to your copy? And continue to live your normal life outside while your digital self lives their digital life?

Or are you saying you want the transition to digital to be seamless, where your digital self remembers laying in a chair, a quick pin-prick, and then they’re in the digital realm?

Keep in mind, we have zero understanding of how you’d get the meat consciousness to transition into the digital consciousness - it’s likely not even possible. The two options for copying are keep both alive or terminate the original somewhere before bringing the digital one online. There’s many ways to do both, but those are the two.

That continuity of function is arbitrary. In reality it provides people comfort in some idea of a soul but there’s nothing suggesting it actually provides anything to the continuity of consciousness.

Between every loss in time, where you stop forming memories until you wake up again, you have nothing to affirm that your current consciousness is the same as your last waking period’s. The only thing vaguely providing that illusion is your previously-formed memories, which would exist all the same on the digital mind, in theory.

1. What games? That’s a VERY big part of this whole process.
2. What are the laptop specs? The hardware is also a massive part of it.

There will be collateral damage. There always is. The idea there wouldn’t be collateral damage is already setting the bar higher than is feasible.

Also Freetube has these features.

For linux users, you can add it to Steam as a nonsteam game for proton support and add the .NET 8.0 runtime environment using the explorer app in protontricks. It runs great via that method.

Current accusations:

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) claims the malign foreign influence efforts at issue in the case were orchestrated by three Russian nationals — two FSB officers identified as Aleksei Borisovich and Yegor Popov, and Aleksandr Ionov, a Moscow-based activist whose anti-globalization efforts were allegedly bankrolled by the FSB. Ionov founded and ran the Anti-Globalization Movement of Russia (AGMR), which, according to prosecutors, worked with a handful of US grassroots organizations to spread Russian influence and interfere with US elections.

To this end, Ionov invited Yeshitela to Moscow in 2015 to discuss “future cooperation,” according to the indictment. The trip was fully paid for by AGMR, according to US prosecutors, who also noted that in planning logistics, Yeshitela had requested meetings with “an official representative of the Russian government” and members of the diplomatic corps of Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, and Syria. Though the indictment did not detail the outcome of the Moscow trip, it outlined several campaigns AGMR subsequently supported APSP with, including a UN “petition on Genocide of African people in US,” which Ionov allegedly offered media support for.

According to the DOJ, AGMR used APSP and other groups to “create the appearance of American popular support for Russia’s annexation of territories in Ukraine” and to cast Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine as a war on “Naziism.” The latter is a common Kremlin talking point; in March 2022, days after Russia launched its invasion, Putin told members of the Russian Security Council:

I will never abandon my conviction that Russians and Ukrainians are one nation, even though some people in Ukraine have been intimidated, many have been duped by nationalist Nazi propaganda, and some have consciously decided to become followers of Bandera and other Nazi accomplices, who fought on Hitler’s side during the Great Patriotic War.

Among other alleged incidents, the AMGR also pushed APSP to make statements in support of APSP Russian Olympic team as its athletes were ensnared in a massive doping scandal, encouraged APSP’s efforts to seek reparations for American slavery, and offered to finance defendant Nevel in a run for local office.

Yeshitela, Hess, Nevel, and Romain face charges of conspiring to defraud the US. The former three are also charged with failure to register as agents of a foreign government.

Was gonna say, it’s almost definitely a cost-savings measure.