• Matrix - federated chat server
• Vaultwarden - password vault
• Fireshare - share video clips
• Broadcast-box - host low latency streams

The first is to defend the status quo.

I want change. I thought I made that clear.

What I don’t agree with, is laws being pointless. Their ideal is to use violence to reduce and prevent violence.

Human society needs that. Done well they are a net good.

And you’re just doing that with ideas you misunderstand so badly i can’t even bring myself to correct you on.

“You’re so wrong I can’t even describe it”, and you’re saying I’m the one trying to be edgy?

Really convenient excuse to not actually engage.

Things are sometimes simple though. Violence indeed bad. Best avoided. Not a good thing.

Yes.

Yet, it can be used to do good.

And doing so is not only possible, but necessary.

Youve clearly lived a very sheltered life and violence to you is just an abstraction. Youve never experienced the world so its really easy to imagine its all as flat and consequence free as your abstractions.

Ok? Figuring someone out, even if you pull it off, doesn’t invalidate their logic.

And you’re picking and choosing among the things I’ve said. I’m not gonna repeat myself by pointing out the contradictions in these conclusions with what you should know about me.

I’m going to stop now. I’m pretty sure you’re a troll at this point. You’ve only made less sense, as you enigmatically refuse to elaborate in favor of attempts to discredit rather than dismantle.

So to start off with, youre using one example of game theory, the prisoners dilemma, as a stand in for right/wrong.

I’m not. People can also co-operate to do bad things. The principle still applies.

You either screw over others for individual benefit, or co-operate for collective benefit. That collective benefit can still be bad and come at the cost of your group defecting against another. Like a nation going to war.

Or a small group in an advantaged position co-operating to enforce laws against a far larger group.

Your oversimplification is stuff like “laws bad” or “violence bad”. Far more egregious imo.

At least I apply logic that can be adapted to describe multiple scenarios, instead of boiling things down to flat statements.

Poetic. Unfortunately wordsmithing does not replace logic.

Violence is to defect.

A minority will always choose to defect, and they or their ability to do so must be removed.

This creates an incentive for co-operators to co-operate, by defecting against defectors en-masse. These are laws (or their ideal, rather). Whether you write them down and enact ceremony around them is inconsequential.

To wish for a system where all-defectors are not dealt with the only way which is effective, to defect back instead of co-operate in vain, is naive.

That you think I need to be told that that is still violence, even more so.

You call me childish, yet you make statements that so grossly simplify reality, that real discussion with you may be impossible.

No, you’re right. Murder being illegal hasn’t saved a single life. In any country. Ever.

/S

Whatever “justice” system you’ve been witness to, must have you seriously confused if it has you thinking it is the only one that can exist.

Bad systems should be removed. But their existence does not mean good systems are not possible.

And you will never see the real picture until you ditch simplifications like “laws bad”.

Don’t confuse what is with what could be.

Instinctively? No.

Due to learned experience and principles of game theory? Yes.

Don’t you try to find out which people will defect and which will co-operate, and act accordingly, instead of just screwing over everyone around you all the time?

Most people will co-operate as much as possible, and only retaliate if and when they are abused, and only against the individual or group that broke the chain of co-operation. This maximizes benefit in a way that far outweighs the cost.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

A better world.

And I happen to believe that humans will co-operate more than defect. And game-theory supports my view. Not yours.

You walked in saying people only ever defect. You’re wrong.

And before you twist my words again, no. I don’t think all-defectors can be turned into co-operators. They need to be removed. But their existence does not mean the rest of us have to be ones, too.

I think you’re confused about what it is I’m rejecting.

At the moment, in a lot cases, yes.

I reject the idea that that is the only possible state of things.

Let me paraphrase your comment: “world bad, good things only possible through bad”

I’m gonna go ahead and reject that, and ask that you re-evaluate whether you had something to contribute.

We’re gonna need new laws. This shit is creating new fucked up incentives to violate people.

I don’t have a static IP, and I just make sure to never ever let my DHCP lease expire. My ISP provides the same IP to the same MAC when renewing the lease. My longest streak on the same IP was three years.

As long as I always turn my router off by cutting the power, it won’t release the lease, so I keep my IP even through reboots. My last one didn’t release the lease at all, so it only ever got a new IP if it was off for over a day, or if I set a new MAC.

When my IP does change, I’ve configured my DNS record to only last an hour. So updating the domain to point to a new IP only takes an hour to update.

Having ideas is generally not enough.

Volunteers don’t take requests. They take suggestions. They only act on the ones they want to.

If you want something to actually get implemented, offering a monetary reward, hiring a dev to contribute, or contributing yourself, is the best way to go.

I’ve gotten several features I wanted into software I use, by adding them myself.

That’s handled by nginx, which strips out the menu items when serving to external IP. Basically serving an html file that doesn’t contain them to begin with.

Yes I did.

I just wrote my own.

It’s a single html file with links to all my services, served at the root of my nginx server.

This is like v12, I’ve edited it over the years as what I host has changed. Adding the embedded searxng bar, as well as links to uptime kuma and openspeedtest.

I’d be happy to let you copy it, provided you know how to edit it for your needs.

Nice ragebait.

If you genuinely still think that was my point in its entirety, you are truly obtuse.

No.

I’m saying 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% ≠ 100%

For some people that’s close enough. For some of us it’s not.

Prove otherwise. I dare you. I’m done putting in effort explaining the obvius to you. Your turn.

…

4

Explain to me how they couldn’t. Without simply stating “it’s encrypted”.

On the B2 plan you can use open source solutions like Kopia, and literally look at the code, to KNOW that data is encrypted on your system with keys only you have, before Backblaze ever sees it.

Explain to me, how the personal plan using their closed source application achieves the same.

Linking to a page where they say “it’s secure” is not sufficient. Elaborate. In detail. To at least an equal extent I already have.

…

Sure they can. How else do they enable providing access to the content without the user password?

The data is secured against unauthorized access, but unlike zero-knowledge setups where the chain of custody is fully within user control, the user is not the only one authorized. And even if you are supposed to be, you cannot ensure that you actually are.

OF-FUCKING-COURSE the physical drives, and network traffic are encrypted. That’s how you prevent unauthorized physical access or sniffing of data in-flight. That’s nothing special.

But encryption is not some kind of magic thing that just automatically means anyone who shouldn’t have access to the data, doesn’t.

For that to actually be the case, you need solid opsec and known chain of custody. Ways of doing things that means the data stays encrypted end-to-end.

The personal backup plan doesn’t have that.