jadedctrl

Reply to Why are we here? by /u/ziq

7

jadedctrl wrote

Raddle: Because it's so much better than Reddit and any Reddit clones out there.

Life: I'm here because my mum didn't use protection and didn't believe in abortion.

1

jadedctrl wrote

if you get the sha256 hash of 12 characters or so, like in an IP address (XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX) there are only around 61917364224 (12^10) possible values.
That might seem like a lot, but a computer can create all of these values and then find the sha256 hashes of them quickly, then save them all in a list of hash-to-IP values.

Then, the hashed IPs that would be logged could easily be compared with the list of hash-to-IP values to find actual IP addresses.

Basically, storing a hash of an IP isn't obfuscation at all.

But throwing salt into the mix— making the hash values of the IP addresses less predictable— would make it very hard to calculate all potential addresses, especially if the salt is completely random.

Let's say that IPs would be hashed as "XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX" with a near-random amount of random characters at the end (salt), determined once every 24 hours. Assuming true randomness, something like that would make them incredibly difficult to predict the hash-to-value list of.

6

jadedctrl wrote

What we need is a place moderated to make rationality/quality mandatory. All fallacies and incendiary speech banned.

So basically, a place where only pedantic assholes with massive amounts of free time to write essays for comments can post? That sounds horrible.

3

jadedctrl wrote

The odds of your recording an audio-book dipping into their sales are pretty small— even if they did, it probably wouldn't be noticeable.

You gave a good effort to contact the author, and you're doing this whole thing in good faith. I think you should go ahead and do the audio-book with a clear head. :)

2

jadedctrl wrote (edited )

Ĥmmm… mi ankaŭ ne sukcesis.

Mi konas amikinon, kiu havas grandan librejon en ŝia domo, enhavata de centoj da Esperantaj libroj el la 19a jarcento (inkluzive iom da historiaj ϗ raraj libroj).
Kiam mi sekvtempe rekontos ŝin, mi pridemandos ĉi tiun libron!

REDAKTO: Unutage, mi volus skani ŝiajn havantajn librojn kiujn ne havas kopioj sur la reto. Ankaŭ, eble mi demandos pri tiu ideo. `o`

1

jadedctrl wrote (edited )

I don't aim for a perfect, utopian society-- but I want a significantly better society.
Even an anarchist, communist society wouldn´t be Utopian: there´d still be pain, conflict, and violence (just not nearly as much).

1

jadedctrl wrote (edited )

"Legally they are unable to consent (and I suppose there's a good reason for that), but not ‘completely’ unable." -F3nd0

Yea. They can't consent, but it's not like the capacity is completely non-existent. It's not sufficient, though.

Do I really need to explain how fucked up this is?

Come on. He literally just said that it varies— it can be somewhat damaging, horribly damaging, or anything in between. That's a given for anything, there's always variability no matter how horrific something is.

but they left the conversation and never came back to it to apologies and show that they have learn which lead me to believe they still think the same which make them transphobic.

They put mostly positive spins on sentences that technically could be interpreted as transphobic or trans-friendly, and then stubbornly defended them the whole thread. They're very stubborn, but that doesn't make them transphobic.

1

jadedctrl wrote (edited )

it was the meaning behind them

They were being argumentative and pedantic— the meaning behind it was, “why are you choosing to interpret them this way, when you could interpret them in this other way?” It wasn't cool, but it wasn't transphobic.

it's about children cannot consent and that paedophilia is a sexual deviance and acting on it make you a child rapist no matter what the kid say

that's a given, I'm not arguing against that at all­— and neither was /u/F3nd0

1

jadedctrl wrote (edited )

Citation please.

I don't want to look up this up (since I'd end up in the corner of the Internet with a bunch of pedos), but I think it'd be fair and logical to think that there are or have been at least a small handful of cases where it wasn't damaging.

If it's not damaging for a 16 year-old to have sex with a 16 year-old, it doesn't make sense that one of them being 19 would make it much more damaging invariably (even though it is significantly more likely that it would be).

EDIT:

How is that pedophilia tho? 2 people the same age having sex has nothing to do with this.

I was talking about the bit about “sexualizing minors”, not just about the paedophilia.

1

jadedctrl wrote (edited )

He wasn't transphobic in the trans forum— he was argumentative, and had a choice of words here and there that don't translate well at all. Like when he said “mismatched”— he was using the type of language that media often uses to describe trans people. They aren't literally mismatched, but, for example, if a trans dude has a vagina and feels that he should have a penis, it could be considered a “mismatch”.

He was well-meaning, but his comments could be interpreted either way. He's not a transphobe.

And as for sexualizing children… he was acknowledging that paedophilia (or any sexual relations minors have, between people their age or not) aren't always damaging. Which is true, they aren't always so damaging (even if they are in the vast, vast majority of cases). He got somewhat close to the line, but I don't think it's quite enough to justify a ban.

6

jadedctrl wrote (edited )

I wrote about this in an edit— no, I don't save IPs or log anything at all, really.
If I get an influx of kiddie porn or something, I might start temporarily storing sha256 checksums of IPs or something like that to protect privacy, but I want to avoid that until it's absolutely necessary. That'll almost certainly never happen though, and if it does I'll be loud about it.

6

jadedctrl wrote (edited )

I don't delete any non-anarchist/communist content— especially since I don't look at the content in the first place, jajaja.

I might see file-names when backing up sometimes (but just the last files starting with "z", because terminal auto-complete), but I don't care enough to check anything out.

As for the official rule: Anything is fair-game on coinsh.red, except for, y'know, child porn. If I run across a troll linking to some of that on coinsh.red, I'll definitely delete it.

EDIT: Ohhhh, you said ban! No, I don't ban anyone from coinsh.red. I don't keep logs, so it'd be kind of impossible anyway.

3

jadedctrl wrote (edited )

It's just a file-hosting site like everything else, really.
You might wanna use it over imgoat because it's run by a comrade here (hi), and is fully libre software.
Also imgoat is run by nazis.

EDIT:

looks at /u/coinshuser's profile

On second thought, it looks like imgoat's right up your alley.