You could have a hired group of people to laugh at certain jokes in a theatre show? Would sound exactly like and have the same purpose as a laugh track. It’d be live and not recorded, but just as non-genuine as actual laughter from the audience.
I use Projectivy at the moment. Pretty close to stock visually, just without the ads or apps you can’t hide. Enough for me to make it tolerable.
I have a Philips GoogleTV. I installed a different app launcher on it, now I don’t get any ads anywhere anymore.
They can’t, their party leader isn’t in government and there’s three other parties keeping them in check (one of those is particularly twitchy about this sort of stuff).
Besides, Dutch law does not provide many executive powers that can infringe upon freedom of speech. There’s not a whole lot they could do even if they tried.
Is public healthcare actually made illegal by the supreme court?
No, Citizens United is the effective legalization of public bribery, masked as “political donations”.
The problem is that you’re never going to get that grassroots movement built up. The healthcare companies rake in billions, they’ll happily spend that to ensure they can keep existing. And other billionaire corporations will join in too, because why risk a party willing to deal with healtcare companies getting power? What else will that party do that could harm their precious profits?
They’ll invest billions to primary candidates, buy media coverage, demonize their opponents or even fabricate fake negative PR. That grassroots movement would be stamped out, as you won’t be able to get enough votes. That’ll put a party like the GOP in charge and they will pass as many voter disenfranchisement laws, gerrymandering laws, etc… to ensure you need massive majorities to barely get 50% of the representation.
People are already pissed with the state of healthcare, so much so that they’re collectively cheering for the murder of a CEO. Yet no grassroots campaign is in sight. By the time the next election rolls around American voters will already have forgotten about that CEO and will be more concerned about inflation or migration or whatever-the-fuck the media has decided to focus on.
I think by the time you get enough Americans on board with a grassroots campaign powerful enough to actually make changes, you are at such a high level of public anger a violent revolution is nearly inevitable.
First-Past-The-Post system sucks but systematic change can happen. Its just… you guys elected Trump.
Systemic change is being made next to impossible due to the rampant legalised bribery and corruption at all levels of the political offices.
How would you even go about going against the corporate oligarchy? Your candidates will get primaried and out-funded, your party colleagues will get bribed to vote against tackling these issues, and that’s all assuming you could get close enough to having enough candidates for all races across the country, you get your messaging picked up by the media and you somehow poll so high that strategic voters won’t split the vote, actively putting the worst party in charge instead.
You’d somehow have to get elected, get enough supreme court justices pushed through and have them repeal Citizens United to even get started. That’s a tall order to ask from a political class that actively benefits from the current situation.
The “Nothing to hide” argument isn’t really an argument, it’s more of a conclusion. That conclusion is then taken to support mass surveillance. It’s also not a logical fallacy (even if it’s wrong). It may be “proven” using logical fallacies, but that doesn’t make it a logical fallacy on its own. So I think it’s correct to remove the logical fallacy text.
I think the more effective defense against this one is to provide counterexamples for why you might care about mass surveillance:
So? There’s not much value in past comments/posts is there? Like, how often do you look back on those?
Apparently it’s either “So Not Quite” or “Status Not Quo”. Not finding anything suggesting it’s “Yes, thank you”. Where does that come from?
EDIT: Oh I guess it’s a phonetic thing? Yes than kyou?
Sure, No Question maybe?
Both WhatsApp and Signal show the same amount of chats to me (9 for both). WhatsApp does show a small sliver of a tenth chat, but it’s not really properly visible. There is a compact mode for the navigation bar in Signal, which helps a bit here.
From what I can see there’s slightly more whitespace between chats, and Signal uses the full height for the chat (eg same size as the picture), whereas WhatsApp uses whitespace above and below, pushing the name and message preview together.
In chats the sizes seem about the same to me, but Signal colouring messages might make it appear a bit more bloated perhaps? Not sure.
Most people with BO say that.
I know a guy who didn’t believe he had BO, and if you were standing next to him you wouldn’t notice either. But walk behind him, and suddenly you noticed an awful BO coming off of him.
Always ask someone else if you smell, it’s not always noticeable to yourself.
The PR had some issues regarding files that were pushed that shouldn’t have been, adding refactors that should have been in separate PRs, etc…
Though the main reason is that Signal doesn’t consider this issue a part of their threat model.
Aaand here’s your misunderstanding.
All messages detected by whatever algorithm/AI the provider implemented are sent to the authorities. The proposal specifically says that even if there is some doubt, the messages should be sent. Family photo or CSAM? Send it. Is it a raunchy text to a partner or might one of them be underage? Not 100% sure? Send it. The proposal is very explicit in this.
Providers are additionally required to review a subset of the messages sent over, for tweaking w.r.t. false positives. They do not do a manual review as an additional check before the messages are sent to the authorities.
If I send a letter to someone, the law forbids anyone from opening the letter if they’re not the intended recipient. E2E encryption ensures the same for digital communication. It’s why I know that Zuckerberg can’t read my messages, and neither can the people from Signal (metadata analysis is a different thing of course). But with this chat control proposal, suddenly they, as well as the authorities, would be able to read a part of the messages. This is why it’s an unacceptable breach of privacy.
Thankfully this nonsensical proposal didn’t get a majority.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=COM:2022:209:FIN
Here’s the text. There are no limits on which messages should be scanned anywhere in this text. Even worse: to address false positives, point 28 specifies that each provider should have human oversight to check if what the system finds is indeed CSAM/grooming. So it’s not only the authorities reading your messages, but Meta/Google/etc… as well.
You might be referring to when the EU can issue a detection order. This is not what is meant with the continued scanning of messages, which providers are always required to do, as outlined by the text. So either you are confused, or you’re a liar.
Cite directly from the text where it imposes limits on the automated scanning of messages. I’ll wait.
The point is is that it should never, under no circumstances monitor and eavesdrop private chats. It’s an unacceptable breach of privacy.
Also, please explain what “specific circumstances” you are referring to. The current proposal doesn’t limit the scanning of messages in any way whatsoever.
It does require invasive oversight. If I send a picture of my kid to my wife, I don’t want some AI algorithm to have a brainfart and instead upload the picture to Europol for strangers to see and to put me on some list I don’t belong.
People sharing CSAM are unlikely to use apps that force these scans anyway.
I feel like you’re being overly pedantic here. The idea was intended to have the exact same effect, for the exact same reason. The only difference is the medium.
The most important element of a “laugh track” isn’t the track, it’s the element of laughter purposefully being inserted rather than being elicited from the audience. Sure, these days it’s easiest to do with a recording. But if you wanted to do so before recordings existed, that was possible too: you just need to hire people to do it.
But you’re correct that they didn’t have recording equipment in ancient times. But that also wasn’t the point of the video.