iii

joined 1 month ago
[–] iii@mander.xyz 6 points 1 week ago

I've done toastmasters a long time a go, and it really benefits me till today.

[–] iii@mander.xyz 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm sorry your anger doesn't allow you to see the connection between the technical implementation, and philosophy of www, and your own answer to OPs question.

[–] iii@mander.xyz 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

I think it's dangerous to be unscathed by governments deciding which publishers publish "truth", and which don't.

To not care if the "law" applies to 100% of the population, or only 95%. Some more equal under the law than others.

I bring up 3, because the idea behind www was to counteract the points above.

Imagine the same techniques used by a government you do not agree with. It's very scary, no?

[–] iii@mander.xyz 1 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Some thoughts: (1) networks don't necessarily run according to judicial borders.
(2) you also have to penalize the use of rerouting tools, which Brazil seems to have done.
(3) it became incorrect to refer to it as "world wide web"

[–] iii@mander.xyz 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

More than that. The Brazil government made it illegal for it's citizens to access the site, as well as the use of a VPN. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blocking_of_Twitter_in_Brazil, chapter 'Blocking').

I think it's a swell idea, banning your citizens from reading information you decide is wrong.

[–] iii@mander.xyz 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Apparently, it works by fining users that visit the site. See chapter "Blocking".

How nice, a government that puts criminal penalties on it's citizens reading the (according to them) wrong things. Banning technologies like VPNs.

[–] iii@mander.xyz 0 points 1 week ago

It's short sighted indeed.

[–] iii@mander.xyz -2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

In practice, we could sever the connection between EU internet and the rest of the internet.

Maybe whitelist a set of ideas that are allowed to pass through the great eu firewall.

[–] iii@mander.xyz 1 points 1 week ago

Day before usually

[–] iii@mander.xyz 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

it's already way too expensive.

If you don't account for the storage problem, renewables look like a cheap solution, indeed. And you end up with renewables + huge reliance on fossil fuel.

This is an ideal scenario for the fossil industry.

[–] iii@mander.xyz 1 points 1 week ago (3 children)

We're like five years into an energy revolution

Exactly, after working on it for over 30.

It seems like theyre not even planning on going fossil free.

That quote, again, not mentioning stored energy. How do they not understand that storage needs to be specified in both power and energy?

view more: ‹ prev next ›