Also where are the “think of the children” folks that are putting in the age verification laws. Shouldn’t they be concerned that a marketing agency built to profile individuals is privy to everything your kids do at school?
That’s what I find so absurd about the “humans need variety in their diet” mantra. If we need some vast unknown combination of things, how is it that letting people loose on supermarkets and choosing their own recipes somehow achieves that, compared to at least some first pass attempt based on macro nutrients?
I’m interested in the viewpoints of gay men on this. I’m happy to retire the term (I don’t even know if I’ve ever actually used it), but it would be good to know if folks are actually getting offended by it.
In modern times I take it to be derogatory in an “involuntary submissive” context. One who sucks cock not because they want to, but because they are in some situation where they must.
Should I learn iptables or is it more sane to use a front end like ufw?
I have an RPI with dual Ethernet between my modem and consumer router so I don’t have to depend on the obsolete and limited consumer router software. I’m using OpenWRT at the moment but curious if you have other recommendations. I like the Luci gui so if I switched to headless Debian or something then I’d still want a luci equivalent.
I’m self hosting with docker and I want to set up a wireguard vpn container that joins a network with a select set of containers. So I’d have containers that are accessible only by actual LAN users and then others that are in this isolated group that only the VPN (i.e. WAN people) can access. I thought that’s what docker was all about! But by default it seems all authenticated VPN peers just get to be on the LAN. Sure, they can’t get at containers on a different docker bridge network, but they get to access the host itself! This is why I asked about iptables above, but it’s daunting. Any ideas on how to achieve “two levels of trust” for self hosted services?
These are valid points from the perspective of the present, near, and even semi distant future. I’m thinking centuries long sci-fi stuff here but I can appreciate not many people would have an interest in that kind of discussion; there are zero things I’m suggesting we do now.
Thanks for coming back with the counterpoints though. I find the “predators would suffer” the most compelling.
Again I’m thinking distant sci fi future here, where life (at least human life) doesn’t require death. But even before that, does life require suffering before that death?
We’re talking philosophy here right? I’m ok if you figure “That’s just your opinion, man…”. But is there anything logically inconsistent with extending “I’d like to reduce suffering” to “We need to control nature, eventually”?
Yeah isn’t this still better than the current timeline?