This might not be obvious to some, like it wasn't to me, but Instagram chat history is used for profiling. I noticed when I chatted with someone about something on Instagram, and instantly reels with the subject of our discussion started appearing in my feed.
Failing to connect those dots is (unfortunately) what keeps many, many people from moving their otherwise private conversations to a more private channel. I think you're right that it bears mentioning.
Many people are absolutely convinced that their phones are listening to their in-person conversations already, yet seem ok with continuing to use them.
Definitely Signal. It strikes the fairest balance between industry-standard end-to-end encryption ('E2EE') and usability.
Get as many of your contacts onto Signal as you can. Disable the displaying of message text within device notifications from within the Signal app settings (for both Android and iOS).
GPG doesn't support forward secrecy, which is table stakes for encrypted messaging these days. And that's to say nothing about the slightly suboptimal usabilty...
True, but you're not trusting any corporation to do what they say they are doing, or not changing it out from under you. I guess you're trusting the Gnu people though.
Asking someone to empathize with their persecutor while they are actively harming that someone is generally viewed as abusive gaslighting in most other contexts.
Would you ask physical abuse victims to be empathetic towards their abusers in the middle of a beating, too? What if they were told it hurt, and asked to stop, and they instead continued anyways while repeatedly and politely saying they had good intentions in beating the victim?
Why limit that protective instinct to physical abuse?
What we see in the thread is people doing what you're talking about: trying to step in to stop abuse. The fact that it isn't a beating doesn't mean it isn't abuse.
I saw plenty of empathy in the discussion for the slop-copy author.
I also saw plenty of empathy in the discussion for Don Ho.
There was probably more of the second than the first, which makes sense, as the victim deserves more empathy than the perpetrator, especially while the perpetrator continues to victimize others.
You misunderstand empathy. Its purpose is to see things clearly: a wrongdoer, victimizer, etc. is still human. A victim is not more human. Empathy is outside circumstance. Only when you don't understand it, you start using it in concert with sympathy. They're different things. Ask yourself this: do you need a lack of empathy to recognize that someone is acting in a destructive way?
Gaslighting in its original sense is a continued process of abuse that leads to a person doubting their own perception, typically with a long term PTSD as consequence. What we are discussing here are possible strategies to get somebody to change their behavior. If you consider people stating a different opinion than you to be gaslighting you, you might want to dig deeper.
I think what is happening here is a difference in understanding of what we mean by empathy, and what it entails in terms of visible action or response. I tried to make it clear that to me, you can both be understanding of the feelings and the (ir)rationality of an abuser and be clear in your boundary-setting (and possible application of protective force) at the same time. The understanding of your “opponent” can help guide your interaction, whether it is verbal communication or other. It doesn’t mean “to be nice” in your response, or accepting their actions.
The reason why I advocate for “more empathy” is because I firmly believe it can make you more successful in clear boundary setting and in communicating and achieving your goals, not weaker, especially in situations where you strongly disagree with somebody else’s actions.
To come back to the case at hand: We seem to agree that the goal is to get him to stop and take the project down. The strategies employed so far to tell him No didn’t make him stop. Now what? I suggested to try a little empathy in the response, something along the lines of “Thank you for offering your help in making NP++ even more successful! We appreciate your effort. For now, can you please take it down, and then we can discuss how you can bring your strengths and abilities to the project in a way that causes less controversy in our happy little community? Looking forward to hearing about your ideas!”. (Only works if sufficiently true; adjust where necessary.)
The goal remains the same. Only the strategy is different. It doesn’t matter if I “like” the person or not, or if I “care” about them. I am interested in achieving my goals, and it requires their cooperation for that —- unless I want to sue. Which I don’t.
With your hypothetical domestic violence abuser, you can shout No all you want at some people and they just won’t stop. If your goal is to get them to stop, you CAN try different strategies. Empathy expands your range of possible actions; it doesn’t limit them.
> Gaslighting in its original sense is a continued process of abuse that leads to a person doubting their own perception
Yes, like the slop-author here adding gaslighting onto their continuing abuse here, using polite language and self-justification to mask that they are being abusive.
> The reason why I advocate for “more empathy” is because I firmly believe it can make you more successful in firm boundary setting and in communicating and achieving your goals
Don Ho tried that first, even encouraging forks under a different name, yet the abuse still continues. Thus, the hypothesis did not hold true in this case. The other comments you see from victims about how the abuser is violating boundaries, are a direct consequence of the hypothesis being tried and failing here.
Not that it will always fail: it's probably a good idea in general. It just didn't work here. It is an unfortunate fact of life that there exist personalities in this world who simply ignore "no" or "stop hurting me" when it conflicts with their own desires. No amount of empathy will make these people immediately stop.
I did not challenge or question Don Ho’s attempts. I attribute the person’s defensive responses as reaction to other people’s displayed lack of empathy, including some posters here, not Don’s. In fact, when you scroll back you will find that I merely shared my opinion, and then continued to expand on it further to provide more information on why I have that opinion. I don’t need you to agree with me. Often, I expand on my opinions more as a service to other readers, who may still be interested in reading about them.
I don’t share the analysis that it didn’t work; it didn’t work so far; the story is live and still unfolding.
His defensive responses we can set aside for a moment. Even if we ignore those, we see him acting abusively: refusing to get consent; refusing to accept "no", from the very beginning.
> I don’t share the analysis that it didn’t work; it didn’t work so far; the story is live and still unfolding.
I think that Don would, and speaking objectively, we can see that it did not achieve the objective of immediately ceasing violations (potentially including, but not limited to, temporarily taking the site offline while further discussions are had). The immediacy is an inherent part of the objective. A solution that takes days, much less weeks, before the abuse stops, is an inadequate remedy here, and that has been explained to the abuser.
Ran into someone working at Palantir that was above the average foot soldier. They bragged about not having a moral compass. I think that some people enjoy being part of something influential, even if the influence is destructive. "Look at how much money I'm making, how respectable I look, and what interesting social and technical engineering challenges I tackle".
Btw, has anyone heard of Palantir internally cosplaying a paramilitary org? Ranks and designations and such on their equivalent of Discord. I don't remember the details now, but when I saw that it left the impression that these people are detached from reality. I wonder how pervasive this practice is.
There is almost zero chance that the Motorola phones will come with a replaceable battery and likely fall under the exemption anyways. The GOS supported phones will all be flagship level devices (i.e. Signature/RAZR).
> the workers stole from the factory, all the time, at every level.
I think the context is important. These were people in poverty, in an extremely mismanaged society. You could get very little from actual shops. Most things would have to be bartered for. Stealing from the state accounted for a very important part of peoples' sustenance. My grandfather would try to explain it like this: even if you had money, there wasn't anything to buy. In that sense, even the factory managers were poor. Sarah C. M. Paine says that, in terms of buying power, the First Secretary of USSR's wife was poorer than an average American middle-class wife.
Yes. Hence the stories of people (Brezhnev?) being astonished and baffled at simply walking into an American supermarket.
Of course, one reason why there wasn't much on the shelves was it had been already stolen by other people closer to the source ...
(something of a generic problem of low trust societies, not specific to Communism. I think we sometimes don't appreciate how valuable a high trust society is to us in the West, which is why people trying to destroy it by looting from the top are particularly dangerous: the rot spreads from the top)
I suspect it's an imperfect correlation. Other factors like level of income inequality, efficacy/harshness of law enforcement, societal cohesion, would likely influence.
capitalism can work with say 99% tax on estate on death. No trust funds. Tax on wealth above a certain point. Rule of law with sharp teeth. Proper investment in education. Proper anti monopoly so all large corporations gets broken up to avoid their power consolidation...
communism is dictatorship in disguise.
then you have old style feudalism with aristocracy.
>I‘m sure if people want communism, they want the idealistic version.
That is what I mean. They don't want to live like the Soviets or Venezuelans or Cubans. They have a madeup idealistic version that is not real, never was and never will.
Because communism isn't synonymous with marxist-leninism. And even as a leninist, the USSR had several problems that aren't inherent to leninism. The entire way they managed the economy completely ignored the material conditions of the country and attempted to brute force a jump to communism by bypassing both capitalism and socialism to different extents. That's why china started working after Deng, the party realised that the productive elements of capitalism can be useful in building socialism when there wasn't the creation of excess by capitalism as assumed by marx
The issue with communism is if it never happened for real you can imagine all sorts of good amazing things from it with 0 pushback. Look atleast at the states calming to be communist. Would you rather live in Soviet or Western Europe? Ask the balts and poles...
> attempted to brute force a jump to communism by bypassing both capitalism
USSR had NEP for several years.
> and socialism
This is incorrect. USSR policy was to build socialism, and then, when it was declared to be successfully built, "developed socialism" in 1961.
> That's why china started working after Deng, the party realised that the productive elements of capitalism can be useful in building socialism
You mean they completely abandoned the whole idea? It it is 2026 and China still doesn't have some basic things like free healthcare or a state provided housing (things Soviet people enjoyed for most of USSR existence). In fact, looking at China objectively for a moment while ignoring how the ruling party calls itself it appears to me quite authoritarian capitalist state.
> wasn't the creation of excess by capitalism as assumed by marx
What? Owners of major enterprises in China enjoy exceptional luxury created as an "excess" from their businesses fueled by cheap 996 labor.
Overall, you might want to reconsider engaging in such discussion on this forum that is full of people born in actual Soviet Fucking Union.
they did, and it was good for them. Stalin ended up gutting it and it would end up shooting the country in the foot
>You mean they completely abandoned the whole idea? It it is 2026 and China still doesn't have some basic things like free healthcare or a state provided housing (things Soviet people enjoyed for most of USSR existence). In fact, looking at China objectively for a moment while ignoring how the ruling party calls itself it appears to me quite authoritarian capitalist state.
I won't deny that they are authoritarian, I disagree with them on a lot of things regarding how they handle political freedom. They don't have free housing or healthcare, but the average person is doing fine. The healthcare isn't expensive and people can afford to "own" (they don't own it in the capitalist sense but own it in the "it's mine, I can do what I want, and don't have to worry about rent" way).
> What? Owners of major enterprises in China enjoy exceptional luxury created as an "excess" from their businesses fueled by cheap 996 labor.
I also won't deny that. It is a problem that the chinese government is currently trying to deal with. Meanwhile, the production of the goods they got rich on has built up chinas economy and created industrial capability that wouldn't exist otherwise. It's kinda hard to redistribute wealth when there isn't any to redistribute, which is ultimately (when combined with other factors) why the USSR failed
>Overall, you might want to reconsider engaging in such discussion on this forum that is full of people born in actual Soviet Fucking Union. Although it is kinda entertaining reading champagne socialist opinions of western hipsters fancying themselves left-wing (because they read couple of pages of wikipedia and voted for Bernie, who upon returning from his getting-drunk-in-a-sauna-with-party-aparatchiks trip to Soviet Union in 88 was telling you how good of a country it was when Soviet Union was actually completely falling apart by then).
again, I'm not denying your gripes with the soviet union. It was objectively falling apart and was managed very poorly. I dislike your categorization of me as a "champagne socialist" who "voted for bernie and read wikipedia" as those are both objectively incorrect (aside from the wikipedia bit, as it is where I started unraveling my misconceptions about marx and socialism before moving on to actual theory). I didn't vote for bernie and while his reforms are undoubtedly good for the working class, it's putting a bandaid on the gaping gunshot wound that is capitalism. I'm also not a champagne socialist, I don't have a lot of money and don't really like champagne anyway
> Radicle’s Collaborative Objects (COBs) provide Radicle’s social primitive. This enables features such as issues, discussions and code review to be implemented as Git objects. Developers can extend Radicle’s capabilities to build any kind of collaboration flow they see fit.
reply