I think you touched on how to make pay it forward work: make it as low effort as possible.

In this case, while you had lots of work, the people “paying it forward” had almost none. Thus the chain was able to go for as long as you were willing.

Yep. Prior to last year if person X told me person Y was antisemitic, my opinion of person Y would have dropped.

Today? It’s about a 33% chance for each of X, Y or both being pieces of shit.

Wanted to see if I could do anything exciting with the new Satisfactory dedicated server API. There’s no documentation of it anywhere online, but there’s a random markdown file documenting it in the installation directory. Got it working but turns out it can’t do much. Oh well

Negativity bias is real! I was reminding myself just today that for every act of hatred, there are ten thousand acts of love or kindness happening unreported all over the world. In homes, on the streets at the store…

Don’t let the news get you down. Things aren’t as bad as all that.

100% this.

For me I got so immersed in the world and character that it didn’t even occur to me to save scum. This RPG is so good that I actually felt like I was living the story. The only game that ever managed to accomplish that.

Terrorism is when the weak strike against the powerful. Oppression is when the powerful strike against the weak. Both are deplorable, but the latter is much more insidious due to the target population’s inability to stand up for itself.

So it’s very rich to hear you lecture others on not knowing their history, when you apparently just ignore the over half a century of oppression that led to these acts of terrorism in the first place.

You also say all Palestinians are undeserving of sympathy, because of these acts of terrorism. Is that because you think all Palestinians are terrorists? Or just because you think Palestinians are subhuman and undeserving of sympathy by default? Either way, there’s a word for that, it’s called being a bigot.

You do if third party clients aren’t possible? You have control over what client the receiving end is using.

But apparently third party clients are possible, so it’s moot.

Of course, I fully agree! My point was just that you can eliminate the risk of poorly implemented cryptography at the endpoints. Obviously there’s a thousand and one other ways things could go wrong. But we do the best we can with security.

Anyway apparently third party clients are allowed after all? So it’s a moot point.

Excellent point! If I’m sending someone information that could get me killed if it were intercepted by the state, I’d sure as hell want some guarantees about how the other side is handling my data. Disallowing third party clients gives me at least one such guarantee.

I wouldn’t recommend talking to your cat about Satanism. The best bet is to just hope they never find out about it.

Mixed Up Mother Goose

Telling advertisers to fuck off works if your goal is to create a niche product tailored to people who care deeply about privacy already. But Mozilla is very much all about trying to make things better for everyone on the internet, regardless about their opinions (or lack thereof) on privacy and ads.

Mozilla has recognised that advertising isn’t going anywhere, so there’s two options:

1. Reject ads wholesale and become irrelevant.
2. Push for a better alternative that can improve privacy while still keeping the engine that drives the internet intact.

What other major player would ever push for privacy preserving attribution? Hint: no one. While I get that many people here want 0 ads (myself included), PPA is a great step in the right direction, and could have a huge positive impact if it’s shown to work and other companies start adopting it.

And guess what? You can still turn it off, or use adblockers. Unlike Chrome, Firefox won’t restrict you in that regard.

I’m not American and I almost never read the Times, so I don’t have first hand experience. But I hear the same rhetoric about outlets here in Canada.

My take is that yes, outlets can have bias on certain issues, but that doesn’t mean we should write them off completely. Trust in media is at an all time low, journalism is struggling to survive. There’s no media outlet in the world that doesn’t make the kinds of mistakes that you outline here. The key is how do they respond to them after the fact. Do they issue corrections? How quickly? Where do they put them?

Some of your ‘evidence’ also doesn’t seem like journalistic malpractice. For example, are they obfuscating poor sources, or not revealing an anonymous source? The latter is not malpractice. The former doesn’t sound bad either… Who decides if a source is poor? Maybe the source didn’t have much to contribute so that’s why there wasn’t much detail on their background. I’m not arguing that you’re wrong, just that as an outside observer that point doesn’t seem very bad.

Anyway, I do think it’s important to be aware of any biases in the media we consume, so conversations like this are important. But my fear is that if the conclusion is to wholesale stop trusting the media anytime they make a mistake or a bias is revealed (I.e all media outlets), we’re going to be even more fucked than we already are.