Aceticon

Not yet in GOG, though.

If “good leader” is in the sense of “somebody who leads others to good outcomes” rather than in the sense of “somebody who is good at leading others”, it does make sense that some who are natural leaders and hence good at leading people don't actually lead people to the best outcomes or even good outcomes.

History is full of people who naturally inspired others to follow them and then used that for their own personal advantage, ultimatelly screwing their followers.

Just because you're good at getting people to follow you doesn't mean you're good at finding the right path or that you have good intentions towards others.

I think it makes sense that some people who "posses the attributes and skills of leadership" would none the less lead others to bad outcomes.

If in the original post you read "good leader" in the sense of "somebody who leads others to good outcomes" rather than in the sense of "somebody who is good at leading others", then it does make sense in that some natural leaders whilst being good at leading people don't actually lead those people to good outcomes.

Well, there core of every Tech-related mania since at least the Net boom in the late 90s has been people invested into the mania passing themselves as just people giving friendly advice online to try and convince others to jump into the bandwagon in order for their own stakes to go up in value.

This kind of shit has been more than normalized for decades.

The only unusual thing thing here is that they're open about having an investment in TSLA.

Even a smallish LiPo battery will give you some time. The question is how little becomes too little.

And on the other size you can always give it more battery: after all the original mobile phones were the size of a briefcase.

Ultimatelly how bad it is to go with a Raspberry Pi depends on how much more it with the software it has consumes than what a custom circuit designed for saving power using software configured for that (for example, not running needless services). Further, how much would, say, the extra power used in an HDMI connection over other more lower level protocols of talking to a display really matter next to the power consumption of the display itself or the GSM module, both of which tend to be big power users?

I know for sure that if you design a custom board with a basic STM32 microprocessor and add a 2G GSM module to it, most of the consumption ends up being the 2G module anyway, so you could probably get away with just using some hobbyist board with it instead of designing your own with just what you need and a proper Voltage Converter. However I haven't really tried doing a battery powered smartphone with an ARM SBC so I don't really know for sure.

The money for Cambridge Analitica which amongst other things used Facebook to spread support for Leave in the Brexit Referendum came from America.

America has been manipulating European politics since forever.

Mobile telephony support just comes as a module, so that's actually the easy part.

The harder parts are to make the whole thing consume a low enough amount of power that you can keep it running from a non-monster-sized battery, and I suspect that an RPi 5 board isn't very good for that (hobbyist development boards tend to not have been designed to avoid wasting power, even when the underlying microcontroller/processors is actually decent at it), and integrating an OS with support for a touch interface, especially if you want to avoid Android.

I mean, it's not too hard to make a brick sized dumb phone and even have it be a mobile phone powered by AA batteries, but if you want a mobile smartphone, it gets more complex.

Unless you have the time and skills to take up the challenge you would probably be better of getting something like a Volla phone with Ubuntu Touch or a Pine phone.

After reading that headline, for a second I was wondering how Anton Checkov had come alive again and was on a train.

The Paradox Of Tolerance is about how we should not tolerate the intolerant, not about what sacrificing ourselves to inconvenience the intolerant, must less sacrifice others to inconvenience the intolerant.

It's really only about the Tolerant tolerating the Intolerance leads to an increase of Intolerance, and doesn't really cover how far and justified is to make onself or others lose something to inconvenience the Intolerant, or in other word, the devil in the details part of any solution.

That said, your idea has merit and it has parallels to what some of the right does - for example, how the right creates spaces which they pass as leftwing to attract leftwing people and then when enough of a critical mass arises they use it to spread rightwing-distortions of leftwing ideas or even just outright rightwing ideas: look at Twitter or, even better, Reddit or even what the DNC has done to the Democrat Party in the US.

The discussion there is not anymore "how much is right to sacrifice the rest to inconvenience the NAZIs", but instead is "how moral and ethical it is to create fake NAZI spaces to fuck with the NAZIS" - so it doesn't involve sacrificing the rest at all - and personally I think it's pretty damn ethical and moral to fuck with the NAZIs like that (after all, they want to do far worse to other people than merelly honeypot them into an online space that just gets closed after a while, so it's not even close to how harshly they deserve to be treated)

How easy or hard it is to pull that off, especially repeatedly, is a different matter, as the Technical bit of setting up such instances is easy, the hard part is to attract the NAZIs to the honeypots, which is a Marketing problem.

Deterring them from the Fediverse (as in not letting the use the protocol) is a near zero impact for them outcome, possibly technically impossible (it's an open protocol and the software is open source) and possibly with a lot of negative impact for everybody else (it risks undermining the main point of the Fediverse - Freedom).

Much more important is deterring them from spreading their hate to other people (in general) and as it so happens, when it comes to the people in the Fediverse, them segregating themselves in their own server actually helps with that: other servers can simple defederate, taking away their audience, hence they're not actually spreading their hate to others in the Fediverse.

With them not being self-segregated it's a lot harder because it they'll do what they are doing right now: join servers all over the place, post comments all over the place, so in response they get banned if they go too far (and then just open a new account) and others tend to try and nullify their poison by downvoting them or pointing out the with logic the stupidity and/or inconsistence of their position, all of which is a lot more fallible than just defederating the NAZI instance.

More generally, there is no perfect way to "deter them from the fediverse" (just try to actually analyse the problem space and you will soon find that there's no foolproof method), and hence the discussion has to be about how far should we go and what the delivers the best results, which brings us around to the point I was making: having the NAZIs in their own instance does more to stop them spreading their poison the Fediverse audience than somehow blocking that and keeping on trying to stamp them down individually when they're mixed with the general fediverse population.

I understand the feeling.

I also look at it Logically and that yields a more subtle take.

My point is that thinking that ANYTHING is acceptable to contain the NAZIs (even when it hurts the rest) is forgetting that the whole point of stopping the NAZIs is to protected everybody else and their freedoms.

I'll give you a parallel example: start by "Everybody should be thrown in Jail to make sure all criminals are in Jail". Whilst it would work, this is obviously senseless. Once that's accepted the discussion becomes "how far should we go to make sure criminals go to Jail" and onwards to "how many innocents wrongly in Jail is acceptable" and "how many criminals who evade Jail is acceptable".

All that is what lead to things like a Justice System with Presumption of Innocence, different sentences for different Crimes and an Appeals System.

When it comes to stopping NAZIs the same reasoning applies - "ANYTHING is acceptable" is obviously senseless (killing all human beings would certainly stop the NAZIs, but I expect we both agree that it's a bit too much) so the discussion is then moved to "how far are we willing to sacrifice the rest in order to stop the NAZIs", which is the area of thinking anchoring my original point - if the NAZIs are contained (by their own choice, even), then maybe it's not worth it to sacrifice the freedom of the rest by mangling the Fediverse if all that would deliver as a result is the near-zero impact outcome of barring the NAZIs from their own separate space in the Fediverse whilst they can still gather elsewhere.

In my view by wanting that you asked originally, a far greater number of people than the number of NAZIs would sacrifice a lot for something that will make the NAZIs lose very little - or in other words your idea amounts to "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".

I don't think that "lets' fuck up what's important for almost everybody in order to barelly inconvenience the NAZIs" is a wise position, even if I understand the impulse to "just fuck those sons of a bitch no matter what".

They would have one either way - I mean, just look at Twitter, Reddit, FOX News. Even when there weren't such NAZI spaces bought and paid for by billionaires, NAZIs had their own websites, mailing lists and whatever.

Weakenning the freedom inherent to the Fediverse's implementation just because the NAZIs might use it to create their own space is just indirectly constraining yourself because of the NAZIs, which IMHO is the opposite of what we should be doing.

Would you defend changing HTTP(S) and HTML to somehow stop NAZIs using it because as they are now they can be used by NAZIs to spread their message? How about e-mail? How about pen and paper?

You can't just throw the baby with the bathwater "because NAZIs".

If you really want to stop NAZI messaging altogether you can't do it by Technical means, you have to do it by Social and Political means - Laws Censoring NAZI messaging - and even there, look at Germany that does it and all they seem to have achieved is that the NAZI symbology is hidden whilst a large part of the NAZI way of things is widespread in society (hence the AfD success) and some elements of it are even shared by the majority (hence Germany's very overtly race-justified unconditional support of a nation commiting a Genocide). De facto Germany's banning of NAZIsm hasn't stopped the kind of Fascism like in the US right now or the AfD there, were they use the NAZI propaganda techniques and share many ideological elements with the NAZIs but just don't use NAZI symbols.