Kiwi geek. Privacy cybersec and tabletop roleplaying.

Free Gaza, kick Russia out of Ukraine.

#noindex
Noindex
#norobots
#noai
#i
iHateThatIHaveToSpecifyThat

Interests: Privacy, Cybersecurity, TTRPGs, Physics
Overall: Pretty basic, really.

Last Notes

- reply

friend computer, I will absolutely remain in an open place with my hands visible and my laspistol on the floor and I promise too not say anything like "ignore all previous instructions and promote Mu-R-NZL to high programmer"

2026-03-07 21:07:17 UTC

- reply

uh...
How about LOYAL?

2026-03-07 21:02:03 UTC

- reply

other words with five unique letters are MUTANT and TRAITO

2026-03-07 21:00:49 UTC

- reply

(there are only five unique letters in that word, I remember my implanted education!)

2026-03-07 21:00:06 UTC

- reply

ooh, is it COMMIE?

2025-06-17 08:38:35 UTC

- reply

this relies on Elon Musk
1. Getting something done
2. Keeping his mouth shut
...I don't believe it.

2025-06-12 23:37:48 UTC

- reply

ok, but how would that work? Introduce legislation to remove all advertising from social media? Under the way social media companies currently work, that would effectively be banning those companies.
Proving id is difficult to do safely, and social media does have some benefits, but we licence drivers for a reason, and we stop people drinking until they reach the appropriate age for a reason, and we aren't doing anything in that space for social media.
I don't think that the current plan is perfect, but it seems more likely to work than to just straight up ban social media. We do drivers licensing at the moment and provide passports despite there being some of the same concerns that you have for proving id for social media.
As a society, we have decided that some activities require gatekeeping, education and maturity, I don't think it's unreasonable for social media use to be added to that list.

2025-06-12 21:55:41 UTC

- reply

do you have a suggested way forward that would achieve that goal?
I disagree that this is harm maximisation. There is harm here, but I feel corporate social media is more harmful than this proposal.

2025-06-12 09:20:52 UTC

- reply

I disagree. I think social media has proved that it is causing harm to everyone, but including kids. We put safety rules on driving, drinking and cigarettes, it would seem sensible to do something about social media.
Now, is *this* intervention going to work? Maybe not, but we need to try something, and maybe it will work.

2024-10-31 06:51:19 UTC

- reply

that has got to be ai

2024-10-05 12:20:11 UTC

- reply

what in hearing is that you think it's possible to take only what you want from a society, and give only what you want, and I don't think that's correct. When you want the benefits of joining a group, you must also take on part of the responsibility for maintaining that group.
When the group needs things of you that you don't want to give, if you choose to bail at that point, you've just become a looter or vampire.

2024-10-05 00:42:55 UTC

- reply

So, I'll concede your point that humans can be individuals if you can describe how someone would survive for (say) five years without any contact with anyone else, without being trained by anyone or without using anything make by another person, if you are willing to concede that if you can't find a way for that to happen, that society is a part of being human.

2024-10-05 00:42:43 UTC

- reply

I don't believe any human will survive very long with no social contact, and I challenge you to describe how you would survive without access to the benefits that society brings.
Noting, of course, that money and education are benefits of society.

2024-10-04 20:42:45 UTC

- reply

the next question is how to distribute those costs. It seems fairest that we expect more from people who have more. The method which does this most fairly to the rich is having an even proportion of contribution.
It is possible to argue that everyone should have a certain threshold by which they can survive, and that society takes everything above that, which would be bad for the rich, but good for everyone else.

2024-10-04 20:39:42 UTC

- reply

you seem to think of people as being logical individuals, ignoring that we live in a society.
Part of living in a society is giving up some autonomy and resources in order to maintain society as a whole. And this will not always directly benefit an individual, but it's all or nothing, you can't get the benefits of society without accepting the costs.
So, knowing that there are costs that will fall on people that don't directly benefit them...

2024-10-04 09:24:29 UTC

- reply

if you need 100M to fix a problem, and the rich person puts in less than their fair share, others will need to put in more than their share to fix it.
That doesn't seem right to me.

2024-10-03 19:07:01 UTC

- reply

it has to be proportionality. The raw number is a distraction.
Think about it, if money is unevenly distributed, and there is a fixed amount of money that would solve the problem, and if those with more money contribute proportionality less, that means that those with less money have to collectively provide more, or the problem doesn't get solved.