17:40:13 [weezzee] IM HAXOR 😎️ 17:44:36 [weezzee] NOW ITS TIME TO WATCH THE MASK ON REPEAT AND MEMORIZE ALL THE LINES SO I CAN BECOME MORE LIKE THE MASK IN MY DAY TO DAY LIFE

Can I play this using a tile set on Linux without Steam?

The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose off the common
But leaves the greater villain loose
Who steals the common from the goose.

The law demands that we atone
When we take things we do not own
But leaves the lords and ladies fine
Who takes things that are yours and mine.

The poor and wretched don’t escape
If they conspire the law to break;
This must be so but they endure
Those who conspire to make the law.

The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose from off the common
And geese will still a common lack
Till they go and steal it back.

https://www.onthecommons.org/magazine/“stealing-common-goose”/

Hi Shelley! How are you? I really hope you're doing well. Shelley, we didn't go to school together and you're not my kris kringle, I'm at work and I need x. Ping me if you need anything. Also donuts in the kitchen.

but the argument I have nothing to hide except bank account passwords etc is hard to argue with

It's simple to argue against: any and all data points are either potential threat vectors, or will in aggregate paint a better picture of the individual they pertain to, for the data's possessor to use as they wish. A default-deny policy for data creation/access makes as much sense for individuals as it does workplaces.

'No one's spying on me, I'm not interesting' is more pernicious than Nothing to Hide. Most adults can kind of sense the idiocy of the latter refrain. But ask the utterer why advertising is a trillion-dollar industry if their attitudes and behaviours aren't interesting, or why a data broking industry even exists, and you'll typically be asked 'why care?'

What's harder to work out is whether the utterance is a genuine failure to comprehend the nature of surveillance capitalism, or a grasping denial of its impact, as though they're only 80 per cent convinced of their footprint's worthlessness. It's difficult to convince someone to turn down their data faucet when they barely acknowledge the faucet's existence to start with.

AZIZ

Call me a cynic but I suspect the biggest 'contributor' to r/product will end up being product's marketing department account, likewise with r/country and party-political apparatchiks. The move is elegant in a way: Reddit Inc can ruin true democratic operation of subs by turning subscribers into shareholders (which wards off repeats of mod activism) and simultaneously provide further cover to astroturfers (lots of points = Time and Effort™ = good faith actor).

One of the great traditions of FOSS is its refusal to adopt that corporate visual design ethos which turns every logo into an abstract solid-colour silhouette optimised for mobile rendering. I like GIMP's plucky rodent, for example. A counter-example would be the sad [d]evolution of the Firefox.

Good:

• The supporting cast
• Watching the Entity do its thing
• Rome, Austria, desert segments
• The lead bounty hunters' introspection about taking sides
• The subtext about trust of technology and its role in parsing everyday reality

Bad:

• The entire Venice segment. Cringe.
• Further to above, clunky plotting. It's the real villain of this film. Things feel strained in a way that Fallout never did.
• Gabriel. Who cares?

Raise hell with your telecomms regulator. Choice of DNS (not to mention how web content is rendered) is solely your business, but it will only remain that way if you get vocal.

sudo vim ~/.bash_aliases
alias mp="sudo"

The best thing good users can do is remain on the client for the long term, ensuring traders remain a small minority. The next best thing they can do is PM traders regularly with requests to share. Make their sessions a pain in the butt due to the private chat alert going off routinely. 'Hey trader, please open up to non-buddies temporarily, even at a crippled speed. I'd like two items from you. You know Soulseek is a sharing platform, right?' Some may realise the ridiculousness of their position and co-operate.

Don't stoop to their level by blacklisting, either. They will take that as endorsement of their behaviour. (Set 20kb/s down if it makes you feel better.)

Alright guys the software has this defederate feature, now you do you but I suggest thinking of it like a break-glass-in-ca--

<Beehaw swings hammer>

So you're telling me there's this Cuban institution where ordinary people co-operate to maintain a commons independently of the state, enjoy and retain locally stored data, and provide an affordable, accountable service to people? Pretty based to me. I hope it survives the obsolescence threat posed by better web access.

You're playing into corporate's hands by assuming audiences cannot relate to a narrative if the actors don't resemble them in some fashion. Their interests are served by having you buy into such a notion. They run social media sock-puppet accounts espousing it everywhere you care to look (like throwing spaghetti at a wall, if we just talk about it enough maybe some of it will stick!). The problem is that the notion is bullshit.

I love The Wire. It's the best show about policing. I have nothing in common with black Americans barely living above the poverty line, though. Not behaviour, not worldview, not skin tone, not dress sense. Yet these characters make up three quarters of the cast; and I empathised and sympathised with them all the same. By the same token Lord of the Rings has a broad, enduring reach well beyond the Anglosphere.

I think much of the fuss over representation in modern media comes down to content producers trying to tailor the consumer to their product. They want us preoccupied with it. And when they're caught out or backed into a corner on the matter, rather than fess up and admit they have industrial and institutional pressures to deal with (actor employment, Blackrock ESG gamification, etc), they suggest critics are racist instead. Perhaps that really is a better strategic approach than a policy of honesty and respect for the public's intelligence. But it doesn't make it true.

Talk about digital privacy like you talk about physical health.

I don't decide to consign myself to a life of fast food and video games because I'm a currently a bit flabby and sedentary. That's called defeatism. If we thought about our health this way we'd all be better off dead. Rather, I recognise I'm at a particular point on a spectrum due to neglect, and take conscious action to move towards the optimal state: I walk to the shops. I take the stairs. I get in more greens.

Normie has to be shown a new perspective on a domain of his life he thinks he has filed away for good (no doubt due to discomfort). His privacy is not a balloon that becomes a discardable bit of plastic once popped; in fact it's something he can tend and hone, as diligently as he does his ab or skincare routines.

He doesn't care now because the issues surrounding digital privacy aren't relevant to him. They are not relevant because the structures and technologies posing the issues are inscrutable, and condition individuals into believing they have zero agency. That's why he'll cede virtually anything for the sake of achieving a BAU task five minutes faster on $ProprietaryApp - he assigns nil value to those personal properties he's convinced he cannot personally secure. He won't reappraise his values until doubt over that comfortable certainty has crept in.

It's going to take charitable people modelling the change they want to see, explaining in social settings why they're paying cash at this venue or not using Chrome or aren't contactable on WhatsApp. And the foundation of that is suitable language. My good health is a product of my routines, my knowledge of what is harmful and beneficial to it, my awareness of the various threat vectors, and my social circle's recognition and encouragement of healthy living. The same applies for privacy.

Don't neglect your cheap protein, stranger. Eggs and sardines in particular. Ain't no fat sardine eaters.