and dangerous
Because the protocol allows to decentralize each part, unlike fediverse
La matrice est universelle, elle est omniprésente, elle est avec nous ici en ce moment même, elle est le monde qu’on superpose à ton regard pour t’empêcher de voir la vérité.
Quelle vérité ? Le fait que tu es un esclave Néo. Le monde est une prison, sans espoir, ni saveur, ni odeur, une prison pour ton esprit.
Use signal
Should do the same for Instagram
This reddit post recommends many file manager apps that mount network storage. Would like to know a foss one though
America or USA?
I need a way to backup my files between the two OS to do the move. I will look at your repo
Weird take. Anyway companies are not the only vilains in this world, governments as well
Israel?
I use revanced, it’s good
Care to explain ?
PopOS but I’d like to switch to NixOS
Nice! I like the Human Benchmark website. Where do you take user stats from? The app is nice but would be cool if it supported dark theme and maybe material you colors. The blue and white is hard on my eyes
Someone has to do a mastodon instance called Bluesky
It is since I criticized only non-constructive criticizing and not critizing in general
“And no you’re not a shit person for critizing any work” is the strawman
I do agree with you point and opinion, but that “logical proof” is one of the worst I’ve read.
The “Nothing to Hide” argument could be restated that way:
Axioms:
A1
: Surveillance reveals hidden thingsA2
: If I have something to hide, I would be concerned if it’s revealedPropositions
p
: I have something to hideq
: I should be concerned about surveillanceWe deduce from the axioms that
p => q
: “if I have something to hide I must be concerned about surveillance”.The logical fallacy of the nothing to hide is to deduce
!p => !q
: “If I have nothing to hide I should not fear surveillance”. Which is a case of Denying the antecedent fallacy.Another fallacy of the argument is that they suppose
!p
is true, which is a debunked fact.What was wrong with your proof was that you used another human to disprove a fact about the first one. The I may not be switchable because the other human may not have the same axioms. Moreover, you statement was about “should” but if someone doesn’t do something they only should do, it’s not a contradiction