New one seems fine to me, haven’t had any issues with it, haven’t been privy to any malicious behavior or past actions that the developers might have done, so personally I find it pretty trustworthy.

it was never as simple as “pick file, send file”.

Not really what Syncthing’s for. Localsend is definitely much better suited for that. (though there is the option on the unofficial Syncthing Android app to use the Android share feature to “save to Syncthing”, then pick which folder you want Syncthing to save it to before syncing it to whatever devices that folder is synced with, though again, not really made for that as a core feature, Localsend is better for that)

Syncthing is more for if you just want a folder on one device to be replicated to another device. For example, my Camera folder on my phone syncs to my PC so I always have a second copy of all my photos by default.

That if something is marketed with health-based language or claims, it must be true. (or that things that are healthy offset other unhealthy activities/behaviors/consumption, i.e. “I might have eaten a ton of ice cream today, but I had a lot of protein so that’ll make up for it”)

Way too many people buy into “healthy” products, especially the very expensive ones, without doing so much as a single search regarding if it’s even necessary for them, or if that particular product is even healthy in the way it appears.

People think anything with protein is inherently healthy, and the more the better, even if their body can’t use all the protein they consume, so they’ll eat multiple protein bars, have meat with every meal, and drink a protein shake every day.

Someone on social media says eating all raw meat and drinking raw milk is healthy, and they don’t even look up how much more likely you are to get a disease from consuming them. (not to mention the impact on their wallet)

A drink will be advertised as a “wellness shot” and is just some fruit juice with ginger, but people will pay 8 bucks for it every day assuming it’ll revolutionize their health, then drink a bunch of beer later that night and wonder why they feel awful later.

Hell, people will even take multivitamins or supplement powders that have 100’s of %'s of their recommended daily intake, and just assume that if they get 500% of their recommended vitamin B, they’ll magically become “healthy” by doing so, instead of “only” getting 100%.

I wouldn’t call it capitalist propaganda to state the fact that, for example, the top 10% of wealth holders are responsible for TWO THIRDS of global warming caused by carbon emissions, with just the top 1% being responsible for 23%.

If anything, that could be called anti-capitalist propaganda, because it actively targets the wealthiest parasitic class in our society and demonstrates that their excessive consumption, funded by the wealth they extract from people’s labor, is responsible for most of our emissions.

Individuals can do things to lessen the impacts their consumption creates on the planet, but it doesn’t change the fact that the biggest current source of emissions is the wealthy.

I could buy eco-friendly soap, compostable toothbrush heads, thrift all my clothes, only buy more expensive but advertised-as-repairable devices, carefully cut around small grease stains on cardboard boxes to ensure it’s recyclable, and refuse to ever buy a drink at the store and only use a water bottle instead.

Those are all examples of actions that almost certainly would help the climate and environment more than if I wasn’t doing them… but if I’m coming back home from a long day at work for a company that sends all its profits to a billionaire who just took a private jet flight to and from lunch on some tropical island somewhere, and I just want to not feel like shit that night, is the most effective strategy really to shame me if I take a warm shower and eat some ice cream out of a non-compostable tub, or is it to concentrate everyone’s shame and collective actions onto that billionaire?

Her 2024 Australian tour was delayed then cancelled after the Australian government refused to give her a visa as she had the “capacity to incite discord”, a decision the high court backed in October.

lmao

There is no definitive evidence linking the new F.D.A. guidance to the lunch, the donation or specific lobbying.

And yet…

At the lunch, the tobacco industry representatives expressed dissatisfaction with the way the Food and Drug Administration was regulating the industry

Mr. Trump interrupted the conversation to call Dr. Marty Makary, the F.D.A. commissioner.

When Mr. Makary did not answer, the president dialed Dr. Makary’s boss, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and another top health official, Dr. Mehmet Oz

Less than one week later, the F.D.A. issued new guidance that could pave the way for major tobacco companies to begin selling flavored vapes and to snare a chunk of the $6 billion e-cigarette market away from illegal Chinese competitors.

To borrow your analogy, gametes range from 0 - 1 and 100 - 101. That’s a binary.

There is also the absence of gametes entirely. Hence, you can’t just rely on gametes to determine sex unless you also think humans can be sex-less.

You’re also presupposing, again, that gametes must be the sole way we determine sex, therefore if they are a binary, sex is a binary. You can have something that is a binary that is also irrelevant or not the sole determiner of what something is as part of another category.

What makes the reset of their body “typically male”?

This is broadly considered by most people for most purposes to be the phenotypic characteristics we most often associate with people considered male. We determined that a group of people commonly had a similar set of phenotypic characteristics, and applied the term “male” to it. This is subjectively determined by society. We could have additionally defined sex based on skin colors, the size or shape of reproductive organs, eye color, etc. We just decided we wanted a category to broadly define people’s phenotypic characteristics, so we looked at the two most distinct, broad groups, and didn’t bother splitting up further. The category does not have a sole, objective determiner, as I’ve demonstrated to you multiple times now. You can have one gamete, both gametes, neither gametes, or only have or stop having a particular gamete at a different point in your life. They do not make for a bulletproof framework underlying sex determination.

It is like asking me to define what a “chair” is. I could say something with a flat surface, back, and 4 legs, but that could accommodate a bench or a bed, for example. it has objectively measurable characteristics, most chairs will be readily identified as a chair and not a bench or a bed by most people, but you will also find some pieces of furniture that are just close enough for people to have differing opinions on. There is no objective measurement. This is annoying to our human brains that love to have a more concrete understanding of things, which is why the outdated idea of the sex binary persists in spite of all evidence of those who don’t land neatly on either side.

Later, as science has progressed, we have found that many people do not solely have this similar set of phenotypic or genotypic characteristics, or have the same phenotypic characteristics with different genotypic ones. Thus, we have expanded our understanding of what sex is to clarify that we know it is not a binary, since we can see that individuals exist without fitting neatly into these groups. This is why the term intersex exists. Science changes when we learn more about the natural world, you are just refusing to acknowledge the advancements we have made in our understanding of human sex over time.

Welcome to the scientific consensus.

I could say the same to you, but you seem intent on rejecting what we’ve learned because it’s not as neat and simple as you want it to be. Sex is messy, sex is a spectrum, nearly all scientists agree on this fact.

I can tell this isn’t a productive conversation, and you seem to be dead set on staying exactly where you are, comfortably holding the same beliefs irrespective of all evidence, so I’m going to mute this thread for myself now. Feel free to respond, but you won’t get another response from me, it’d be a waste of my time.

Should have figured you’d cite a known anti-trans organization that distorts scientific reality to make a point. (oh boy, I sure do wonder why they have an article titled “8-Step Action Plan to Eliminate Gender Ideology”, surely because they actually understand broadly accepted and heavily researched science and not because they just want to make a political point while sounding scientific!)

They think sex can only be determined by gametes. This ignores the fundamental reality that many humans do not produce either of them while retaining wholly ambiguous or non-ambiguous reproductive organs, that some humans can produce both (albeit rarely), or that some humans lose or gain the ability to produce one throughout their lives. (not producing ova until puberty? Tough luck, guess you’re not a female! Body hasn’t fully developed internal reproductive organs until later in life? Guess you’re sex-less until then! Does your body never produce sperm or ova because of a genetic issue? Guess it’s impossible to assign you a sex!)

It also ignores the fact that we tend to classify sex based on phenotypic characteristics. If someone has a penis, generally masculine face and fat distribution, but XX chromosomes and is still able to sometimes produce ova while not producing sperm, even if they’re missing the rest of the necessary reproductive functions, for all intensive purposes, you would call that person male. If every other part of their body is typically male, there is no reason to continually insist that person is actually a female because somewhere inside their body they can produce ova that don’t do anything.

If sex is determined by gametes, there are exceptions to the rule that can’t be classified solely as one or the other.

If sex is determined by chromosomes, then any exception from XX or XY disproves the rule.

If sex is determined by phenotypic characteristics, then we see a spectrum in how they present.

This also simply ignores the fundamental reality that even if you can oversimplify a complex condition into one of two more common options, it doesn’t mean that is correct or accurate to do so.

To use the analogy I used before, you could say that all numbers for simplicity, should be rounded to either 1 or 0, even if it’s 0.9, 0.2, or 0.2398547293875. That could be useful shorthand, and it could generally describe semi-closely how those numbers would operate within a broadly binary system, but at the end of the day those numbers are not 0 or 1.

Claiming that “0.9 = 1” would be stupid.

Claiming “0.9 is basically 1 so why bother ever giving it a different label” would be stupid.

Claiming “0.9 is close enough to 1 to not make a huge difference in outward perception and day-to-day use, so we can rely on it for shorthand while understanding 0.9 is not 1” would be very reasonable.

You cannot look at a spectrum, say “they’re still within the other 2, therefore there’s only 2”, and call it a day.

It’s true these conditions can present similarly to one of the two typical male or female sets of characteristics, or that they can derive from what are often the typical chromosomes of either group. It’s not true that they are male or female and there is only a binary and nothing else.

Variation within a binary makes it, by definition, not a binary system.

Binary is 1 and 0. If you can have 1.5, or 1.234098723, you don’t have a binary system, you have a spectrum.

For example, take this beautifully complicated diagram from Scientific American:

Typical biological males and females are on either end of the spectrum, yet other options exist in between. Hence, not a binary, but a spectrum.

What do you call someone with XY chromosomes but female reproductive structures? How about someone with XX or XY chromosomes but ambiguous genitals, or someone with XXXYY chromosomes? What about someone with mosaicism that causes some cells in their body to have just the X chromosome, and some to have XY, with varying changes in what % each makes up of their body throughout their life?

All of those are real conditions, and that’s just a fraction of them.

The reason this essentialism is stupid is because it assumes a spectrum can in fact be boiled down to a binary, and also that the spectrum must specifically begin, end, and be defined by what is “typical”, and assuming anyone’s sex must solely be determined by its proximity to one of the two options, rather than simply… being allowed to be its own thing that isn’t binary, because the reality, obviously, isn’t.

I personally have used Proton and Tuta, and both have been pretty good to me, it just depends on what you want and how much you want to spend.

Proton is a lot more worth it if you also want additional features that would otherwise cost more to buy on their own, like cloud storage, or a VPN. (they also have a calendar, password manager, docs & sheets editing, video conferencing, and more) It also comes with unlimited email aliases if you pay for it, whereas Tuta has limits on how many aliases you can create unless you use your own domain, which then makes them much more easily fingerprintable.

Tuta is definitely cheaper though, has a much simpler and more janky UI, and has both mail and a calendar, but no cloud storage to my knowledge. They run on more green energy than Proton does, but I find they have less quality of life features than Proton. If all you need is just a cheap way to send and receive emails, with end-to-end encryption, Tuta’s definitely way cheaper than Proton and probably worth it in that case.

For Thunderbird, Tuta has add-ons to allow it to work with Thunderbird, and Proton requires a background application running to decrypt and pass along emails to Thunderbird.

Any encrypted email will require some form of add-on or bridge between them and Thunderbird since they require a way to utilize their particular form of end-to-end encryption, otherwise all your emails would appear as gibberish in Thunderbird.

They see artists as snobs and elites. People they can’t match up to with their own skills that are freaking out when someone invents a machine that can do art ‘better’ (faster with less effort regardless of quality) than them.

That’s why they’ll always talk about how AI “democratizes art” or “makes art available to the masses”, because they see artists who have put a lot of time and effort into their craft not as just highly skilled and well-trained/taught individuals, but as elitists that don’t want them to have the same opportunities.

To them, AI slop becoming more common isn’t just a consequence of AI being cheap even if the outputs are garbage, it’s ‘the market’ deciding that artists just aren’t valued anymore, and that they’re finally taking down the elites that have held art captive for so long.

When you see it from that perspective, it’s no wonder they jump for joy when artists complain about AI and lose their jobs.

Depends. Obviously when they say “secret spyware” that means it is, in fact, secret, and we don’t know which spyware they’re using, but as the article notes it could be Paragon Solutions.

They have a system called Graphite, but that primarily targets just instant messaging platforms. If the article is to be believed when it says it could activate your camera, that would signal to me it’s more likely something from NSO Group, like their Pegasus spyware that can also access your camera, GPS coordinates, and more.

All of these are going to be reliant on zero-day exploits, essentially exploits that aren’t known to anyone yet and are still unpatched. All exploits will be a little different, but when it comes to mobile spyware, we usually see them delivered either through texts, websites, or email.

Those attacks can either be someone just receiving the text (even if they don’t click on it, AKA a “zero click” attack), or maybe having to actually go to a particular website with the exploit baked in, or running an attachment from an email.

God yes. (pun intended)

I once overheard a woman in a store going “Jesus provides”… while staring at a wall of drinks carefully stocked by employees and made in factories built and operated by other people.

biological sex is everything you have describe what are you even disagreeing with

Someone said, at least to summarize, that it’s stupid to think there’s only two sexes, and that people are intentionally ignorant of that fact.

You called that statement “stupid fucking shit”, then in another comment said “I disagreed with this fucking idiot that’s the extent of it.” as if that changed the fact that what you were disagreeing with was their statement.

Thus, the understanding is that you think those ideas are stupid, and thus incorrect.

Even now, you just said “I am not talking about gender.” Guess what? I’m not either. I’m talking about societal understanding of sex characteristics and how they get classified, just like the original comment you said was stupid was doing.

Of course I’m talking about biological sex, that’s the primary component of the thing you called stupid. What else am I supposed to be addressing here? You literally re-stated your point again, saying “This is the stupidest fucking shit I have seen today” while specifically quoting the part of the original comment addressing biological sex. Do you need a refresher on what you yourself quoted? Here it is:

In conclusion, “biological sex” is just another gross simplification created by people who’s minds are so pathetic they can’t comprehend reality and so choose to live by mantra founded in disproven pseudo-sciences, religion, and other excuses to avoid critical thinking, and then put themselves in positions of power.

Does that statement not literally begin by addressing biological sex?

Do you even know the topic of the argument you’re having right now? Are you just blindly disagreeing with people without reading the words you’re quoting? I’m not sure if you’re simply angry for the sake of it and ignorant of what you’re talking about, or if you’re just trolling on purpose, but regardless I’m done with this comment chain. You clearly aren’t acting in good faith, and you clearly don’t have a grasp on what it is you even started arguing about.

You aren’t adressing what they said

Every part of their statement was either reaffirmed or backed up with additional supporting statements in what I wrote. Either you didn’t read what I typed, or you simply don’t have the greatest reading comprehension and can’t see how my statements back up what they originally posted.

you are just stating random facts I never disagreed with.

Those ‘random facts’ are directly reaffirming the other person’s statements, which you called “the stupidest fucking shit I have seen today.” Is it safe to say that you calling something stupid probably means you disagree with it?

You are disingenuous

Keep telling yourself that, I’m sure you gotta fuel that anger somehow. It’s not you who is wrong, it must be everyone else!

Get a fucking grip on fucking reality you stupid fucking idiot. Stop inventing things in your head to disagree with you putrid rotting dog cunt.

I see you’re not exactly into constructive conversation. Maybe chill out instead of getting so angry at comments online that it sends you into a fit of swearing rage?

justify it

Sure. Any time, any day. I doubt you’ll even read past the first sentence given how irrationally angry you seem to be, but maybe you’ll prove me wrong.

• The vast majority of people do not even know there are sexes that could be defined outside the binary of male and female. They don’t know that chromosome combinations outside XX and XY exist at all.
• When people are told this, many of them refuse to accept it, and simply cast it as “outliers” that in the end, don’t change their belief that “there are only 2 sexes”, sometimes because their religion simply states there’s only 2 against all currently known evidence, or even if they are just more broadly liberal and would still say gender is separate from sex. It is an uncomfortable thing for some to come to terms with to understand that something so deeply ingrained into our culture is much more complicated than it seems at a glance.
• This has been a known fact for centuries, and yet society broadly still assumes, by default, that it is “abnormal” and “undesirable”, so surgeries are often performed on intersex individuals as babies to “correct” their sex characteristics to match just the two binary options most people are familiar with, even if that individual later finds out and would otherwise have not wanted the surgery.
• To this day, people like you are continuing to call people like me a “putrid rotting dog cunt” for explaining this well-researched, broadly demonstrated topic with widespread occurrences across the globe, when the more reasonable answer to being told such a fact would be to spend even a minute on any search engine to find out you’re going against the whole of medical consensus and seemingly getting incredibly incensed over the fact that nobody agrees with you.

I never discriminated trans people.

You directly replied to a post talking about biological essentialism and a misunderstanding of sex as a mechanism for discriminating against trans people, telling them “get a grip” and that caring about that scientific reality is “stupid fucking shit.”

Whether you believe it is or not, that is a form of discrimination, as it essentially posits that we should just ignore these facts to appease closed-minded individuals to “win” the culture war, even if that “win” comes at the expense of… being trans not being considered “real” or “biologically accurate” by those who entirely misunderstand what being trans is.

You need to realize that pushing scientific fact to the margins to appease other people fighting the ‘culture war’ does nothing but harm people so those other people can continue to live in ignorance.

Your mentality is the same as someone arguing that we shouldn’t have talked about there being no biological evidence for black people being dumber than white people because that would “lose us the culture war” against white slave owners that think they should get to own slaves because black people are dumber than them. Maybe you win their votes, but you’ve done nothing but enable the continuation of slavery by not confronting its widely believed yet incorrect ideological backing.

Not talking about things like intersex individuals and the unknowns about the links between sex and gender doesn’t win you anything in the long term if it comes at the cost of every single trans and intersex person’s (millions of people in just the USA, and that’s likely an undercount) rights by backsliding on public understanding of the subject.

I never thought I’d like using a word more than enshittification, but conshitidation takes the cake, I think.

Police have a lot of leverage power.

Almost all police are part of some form of union, and they have the ability to say “fuck you, we’re not going to respond to emergency calls if you don’t give us what we want”

…

aaaaaaand they’ll use that tactic to force cities not to implement alternatives to police, like qualified, unarmed, de-escalation trained mental health experts that handle certain situations better than cops, so police retain a total monopoly over state violence and decisions about if someone should be arrested or not… which then lets them keep their bargaining power to do it all over again.

They used to, and they currently do too, but the current one isn’t meant to be an alternative to the like/dislike button like this portrays.

It’s most often in your feed, where occasionally it’ll show a video to you, then give you a tiny light blue box beneath it saying “how good of a recommendation is this” or something along those lines, then you rate it so they can both make the algorithm better overall, and fine-tune yours even if you don’t want to watch the video. (e.g. I might say “5 stars, this is a good recommendation,” but never watch it just because I don’t have the time. YouTube knows I like that topic now, just that I might not watch videos that are that long.)