sneak @sneak@sneak.berlin

@shali@kolektiva.social yes obviously. if i paint you from memory the effect is the same. you'd have to employ violence to stop me from, say, displaying that painting, or selling it. it has nothing to do with you at that point.

i've been sysadminning for well over two decades and every time i try to log a service running under runit or daemontools/svscan, i try for 5 minutes, fail utterly, and give up.

someone want to give me the magic sauce?

@beachbardave@bitcoinhackers.org nice try though, gotcha guy

@beachbardave@bitcoinhackers.org you can own a physical photograph, and you can be in possession of certain digital information that comprises a digital photo. you can't own a digital photo, however, any more than you can own the number two.

@arh i'm not talking about you

@shali@kolektiva.social no you have it backwards. stopping someone from using their own photo requires violence. you don't have to consent for someone else to use a photo that they themselves made. that's not how consent works.

it's really amazing to me how many haters moxie has. just goes to show you that even if you're a cypherpunk doing great work, doing the impossible (actual free software that actually works well, which is cryptography on top, making it 3x impossible) that people will still find lies to repeat to shit on you because you did something big and great and successful.

i was about to say "there should be a name for this" but then i recalled that there actually is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome

stop making the little plastic bit behind the metal sticky-inny usb bit WAY thiccer because sometimes the port is recessed a little you jackasses

@obsolete29 why did you give your money to an (effectively) unregulated bank?

@fabian yeah that's insane and very few countries enforce insane laws like that because the idea that the photo can be yours but the content of the photo isn't is a ridiculous mental contortion designed to prop up the idea of "personality rights" which are a fiction (like all intellectual "property")

@shali@kolektiva.social yeah, precisely. if i take a photo of you, how would you expect to stop me from using that photo in ways you don't like? my use of that photo has nothing to do with you, you'd have to use violence (or get someone else to use violence) to stop me from doing something with it you didn't like.

that's my point: why do people feel entitled to interfere with what other people do with their own photos simply because they appear in them?

@meena that doesn't even logically follow. the idea that the difference between PoS or PoW is what enables or does not enable a ponzi scheme? do you know anything about blockchains? what am i missing here?

@beachbardave@bitcoinhackers.org just because you cite people who also share your wrong belief does not make your belief suddenly correct, sorry

it is impossible to own a song, just like it is impossible to own a number. songs are not property. property can be stolen. songs cannot be stolen. numbers cannot be stolen.

@Chrisleon27 @obsolete29 it also needs a time unit. bandwidth is usually measured in bits per second (e.g. 1000Mbit/sec) but for some reason when you rent servers/vps they do it in gigaBYTES per month or something and it's like 1000x shittier and terrible

@obsolete29 no there are no labels, just bare integers that say 500 or 1000 or 2000 or 3000. is that megabits per second? is that gigabytes per day? terabytes per month? there are no units on the integers

@meena not only is it art in the sense that it has artistic value (which possibly all porn, including hardcore porn, fits), but non-pornographic nude photography (like Lena) is also fine art in the "has daily practical value to actual living thinking human beings that exist" sense. fine art absolutely belongs in the workplace, and if you don't like the art you are not wronged and the work environment is not hostile. banning fine art is not the approach to a broken society or workplace.

"highly classified"

"highly encrypted"

whenever anyone says these things, they are selling something. check your wallet and question everything they say.

@meena furthermore the general american corporate trend of making everything unsexy and sterile and un-aesthetic because PROFESSIONALISM where you can't have any opinion or style is fundamentally rooted in some american puritanical offend-no-one anti-sex crap and it can go die in a fire. nude photography IS NOT UNPROFESSIONAL. you could make an argument for hardcore porn being unprofessional, but a page from something sold widely on newsstands? NOPE.

@meena when you use terms like "highly professional context" (like "highly classified" - either it is or it isn't) it serves to illustrate that this is more about narrative than fact. OF COURSE it is unreasonable for someone to do something unprofessional in a HIGHLY PROFESSIONAL CONTEXT. but that compression loses 100% of the facts of this issue, which is that nobody is harmed, nobody is excluded, and no consent has been broken.