Zoe @ekg@librem.one

@dlakelan billionaires don't always have their wealth in something that can be given away, it's actually extremely rare for people to have their wealth mostly in commodities.

Most Monarchs are popular, that is they have the support of the people. They couldn't surrender their role even if they wanted to.

The Swedish royal family was installed by one of the French republics. He spoke only French and he is most well known for a tattoo, and refusing to pay war debts, to France.

@dlakelan given that people don't have similar goals and desire, why are you against billionaires or Monarchs?

The way I see it is that we have all different lot in life by accident of birth. No one should be punished or belittle because of whom they are, or what life they where born into.

If someone is born into a dynasty, as far as I am concerned it's our job to not punish them for that. The same way we shouldn't punish someone for being poor.

@dlakelan fairness have nothing to do with equal.

What is fair is the universal application of human rights.

What's fair is that everyone has access to the necessities of a decent life with dignity.

That access in no way needs to be equal, or even easy.

I have nothing against billionaires, or Monarchs.

What I am against is children starving, or people being forcefully removed from their home.

@dlakelan what you are describing is called rule of law.

It's a slow deliberate process that is constantly undermine by people that either don't understand it, or is exploited by those that would benefit from its failure.

@dlakelan no, it's not fair to the person sleeping under a bridge.

With every law a constitutional test should be applied to see if it is in agreement with the constitution, where basic rights to dignity is established.

Many of our rights tie back to the Magna Carta, many others come from common law.

@dlakelan you can call anything a law, it doesn't make it so.

I don't know the background of the quote, but I suspect they criticised a specific application of law as unfair. Which would make it a bad law.

@dlakelan no, it's not.

For it to be law it has to be evenly applied to all.

Their exist a lot of fundamentals of law that a lot of people get wrong.

Their is no law if it doesn't apply fairly to all people, regardless of their identity, or background.

Anything else is just thinly wield justifications for evil.

@dlakelan rights, privileges, and infrastructure always begin with the elite, that is what make them the elite.

In a sense being anti-elite is being against extending certain privileges to a consistent small group of people over time.

@dlakelan most ideas, including good ones come from terrible places.

I have advocated for some kind of random draw for representatives for as long as I can remember.

We don't want legislators that ate good at wining elections, we want a fair representation of the populous.

@dlakelan this video made me think of you. LegalEagle has been right on this issue for as long as I have followed them.

https://youtu.be/1leFwYSUHQ4?si=R9klbiH4R9VXJcei

@1000millimeter

I assume you don't work in the rocket industry.

Rapid unscheduled disassembly, Engine rich exhaust, are just some of the more stand out exempl.

@ttmevans @bsdphk @jonathan @cstross long term storage doesn't necessarily imply read and write cycles, quiet the opposite.

@larsbrinkhoff @bsdphk @jonathan @cstross care to elaborate? All I heard is that it is the "best" option.

@bsdphk @jonathan @cstross what about tape?

@jasmine birds do do that. Different populations of the same spices also have different songs, individuals will adopt the local song when moved.

I wish I could remember my source.

@yourwaitress What a beautiful cat!

*yes, I did say it out loud.

@jasmine Performative hatred is the worst. You mean that you make my life hell because you're afraid to stick out? Thanks for telling me where we stand, I guess.

@tychotithonus @Epic_Null

I should probably write what I think is the "real" solution.

The way I would like to solve this problem, that users might use compromised passwords, is a "red team" bot. That would try naive dictionary attacks against high risk accounts, when it break the passphrases the user would be informed that their passphrases is naively crackable.

This would of course require the accusation of passphrases dictionaries.