Ah, that tracks.

I’ll wait and see if they reply, maybe it’s something else.

I don’t think anti-trump is a strict requirement.

Not publicly and directly messaging a known rapist and convicted felon to let him know you think he’s doing a good job “standing up for the little guy” would probably suffice.

Preferring a theoretical instance of a person over a contrived (though admittedly occasionally real) example makes for a good soundbite, not necessarily a real option though.

Or more succinctly, a literal trump loving person who is also accepting is a unicorn with some serious cognitive dissonance.

A “radical” leftist who is also a shitty person is a real thing that can exist.

Comparisons between real things and imaginary things, aren’t good comparisons.

Edit : where did “stealing habit” come from I can’t find any reference anywhere else? Genuine question, I may have missed it.

It is, as well as being 3/4 of the provided usages and a large proportion of the examples.

TIL

I shouldn’t have anything to hide, but I’m part of a group the current fascist leadership in government want’s to eradicate, so hide I shall.

I agree and i think a lot of people who espouse “nothing to hide” as an approach haven’t actually thought it all the way through.

Then there’s the fascists, dictators, oligarchs and other all around shitbags who just want the control.

That said, I also feel like people acting like the remote server they are connected to is tracking what you do on it as some kind of surprise is so stupid. “Facebook is keeping track of the pictures I uploaded to it!!!” There’s a lot of stuff to complain about Facebook, google, or whoever, but them tracking stuff you send to them willingly isn’t one of them.

This always surprises me, i originally thought it was because people didn’t understand how these things work or how capitalist companies work.

More and more it seems like people don’t care until it affects them, which is somewhat understandable, it takes effort to care about this stuff and a lot of people will never be directly affected by the consequences.

What i do still think is that the general population has no idea the extent of what can be done with all of the information they are volunteering.

That’s very slowly changing but the usages of the data are also increasing at a much more rapid pace than before.

oh gosh what’s the word for a group of like-minded locals who cooperate in social endeavors

Communists

/s

Oh yeah, the whole article could be reductively summed up as

“DeepSeek and all the other LLM services are almost as bad as each other, but we think deepseek is worse…because the Chinese government are known for doing bad things”.

The title is factual, if a little clickbaity.

Obviously keystrokes you submit to a website are submitted to the website.

This though, it’s not technically accurate, a lot of forms and input are done client side and then the resulting information is parceled up and sent to the server.

The actual keystroke data isn’t normally sent.

Though this article doesn’t go in to what kind of keystroke data is sent, if it was something more than just which keys in which order then that’s perhaps an indicator that it’s actively being collected for a reason, rather than just incidentally.

If you want to get really paranoid about such things it’s known that you can you can do interesting things with actual keystroke data.

Also, afaict none of the the non-chinese services have specified that they don’t do this.

i mean…yes? that is generally how search platforms work.

I wouldn’t recommend anybody use any google based stuff directly (or at all, if possible) but if you do, then sending the search query is generally what would happen.

Also fair.

Reason is fine, doesn’t mean everyone has to agree.

If you’ve got nothing to hide you don’t have to worry ?

edit : For clarification, i consider “If you’ve got nothing to hide you don’t have to worry” to be a naive argument, at best, in any privacy conversation, but I’m not averse to a well-reasoned argument to the contrary.

The wording here was unclear, what i mean to ask was:

“do you believe If you’ve got nothing to hide you don’t have to worry ?”

Fair enough, I don’t disagree with your choice to defend what you believe in ( and i doubt you care about my opinion on that anyway, i wouldn’t if the situation were reversed ).

Your wording implies you believe that had you chosen differently you would be a coward, are you implying that all people who don’t choose as you did are cowards, or is this specific to your choice ?

What is it you believe in?

From the link you provided, Assuming they haven’t changed it yet.

also friends.

See, now that’s a more thorough explanation of your position.

I disagree with pretty much all of your assertions (though the witch hunt stuff can be true sometimes) , but at least i know I’m disagreeing with an opinion formed using the whole of the information provided.

This “context” added doesn’t move my post a centimeter IMO.

It shows you read the initial information in it’s entirety and still came to the conclusion you did.

That removes the possibility of responses such as “Did you even read the initial tweet?”.

Well… it should remove that possibility, in practice it just means you can safely ignore those responses because clearly the people making those responses haven’t read your response in it’s entirety.

If all he said was literally “i approve of this pick for this position” you’d be correct.

What actually happened was he approved of the pick and also claimed the republicans are now actually the party that stands for the “little guy”.

Then followed up with a non apology that claimed what he said was not intended to be a “political statement”.

by all means, argue that you think there’s a fuss over nothing, but if you leave important context out seemingly because it doesn’t suit your narrative it weakens your argument substantially.

I provided you with a very basic example in which your “mathematical impossibility” breaks down.

So far you’ve stated that there were only two possible interpretations of a statement and then followed up with “mathematical impossibility”.

You are correct though, you can’t reason with someone who didn’t use reason to get to their conclusions.

Saves me some time, good luck.

I’m afraid that fighting oppression and restoring the past oppressed to a level playing field involves finding if actual individuals did indeed suffer from oppression and compensating them for it in some way, a far more difficult task than taking the Fascist’s shortcut of presuming that everybody from a specific race, gender or sexual orientation are equally worthy or unworthy.

Wait…so you’re belief system around this is that the only way to address past injustices to a group or demographics is to find out which specific individuals were impacted and help only them ?

That’s delusional, not in an ad hominem kind of way but in a literal “no basis in reality” way.

You don’t seem to understand what fascism means so all the arguments based on a faulty interpretation are going to be faulty.

Real question though

Because it is literally Mathematically impossible for such a process to be improved to a point where there is full fairness of treatment for all

I’d be genuinely interested to see how you got here , because the anecdotal pseudo-explanation isn’t an actual explanation.

There’s so many faulty assumptions in there it’s difficult to take any conclusion you get to seriously.

You’re assuming that prejudice only applies to one side of this argument, If you start off with two groups:

Group A : 20

Group B : 10

Then Taking 5 from A and moving it to B isn’t prejudice against A.

That’s not even a very accurate example because it assumes a closed system with only 2 distinct groups.

It seems your argument is that group B might not all be as affected, ok, so let’s do that one:

• Group A1 : 9
• Group A2 : 11
• Total : 20

• Group B1 : 3
• Group B2 : 7
• Total : 10

Say we do the same thing here and move 5 from Group A to Group B

• Group A1 : 8
• Group A2 : 7
• Total : 15

• Group B1 : 6
• Group B2 : 9
• Total : 15

Do that for any number of sub-groups, down to an individual person.

It seems your understanding of mathematics is about as grounded as your idea of fascism so i don’t think you’re going to see how what you’re saying doesn’t work.

You can’t Prejudice your way into stopping Prejudiced treatment, not Ideologically and not even Mathematically.

You certainly can’t stop prejudice if you don’t understand what it means and when/where it applies.

It’s difficult to see whether or not a mathematical solution can be found if you don’t understand the practical applications of it.