Maybe I'm mentally exhausted at the moment, so my worst reflexes are taking over, but I'm not going to weep for LGBT conservatives who want to uphold bullshit like family values.

Relevant: Working “Within the System”

Counter-view, at least for one specific case

And thanks for sharing this posts and others like it.

The intersection of language, politics, and activism is important, but often people who think about language, and people who think about politics do not listen to each other.

I would prefer it if the voting system went away, and I wouldn't find a new ranking system necessary (no need for "Top", "Hot", or "Controversial" pages).

I think it's best for for each person to curate their feed manually.

Culture shapes language, and language shapes culture. Often it’s like the proverbial chicken and egg; impossible to discern what came first.

The first claim is overwhelmingly more true than the second, so it's quite easy to discern what came first, but OK, I get their point.

I do agree with the observation that a lot of online politics, including Raddle btw, are presented with a US audience in mind, even when non-US-based activists are the ones writing about them.

That's not necessarily a language issue, as I've seen many authors writing in languages other than English, in places definitely outside of the Anglosphere, who are adopting US political analyses without any modifications to make them work in the local context. Racism (which they mention) is one such case. Racism works different elsewhere, and every time I hear a Levantine progressive identify (with the intend of recognising their privileges) "as a white man", I cringe. "No, you are not enjoying white privilege, you are enjoying dominant-ethnicity privilege. There are people with much fairer skin than you who work in almost slave-labour conditions for you to have your quality of life. You picked the wrong model to understand racism in this region, and that obscures part of the reality. "

Of course writing in a register that is accessible to people who are not familiar with the latest coinages of niche online communities is also important. I've seen English texts geared towards international audiences that were full of Germanisms and other region-specific cultural references and idioms that were impossible to follow as well. Picking the correct register matters, and there's a lot to be said about activist communities linguistic practices.

Not to respond.

Yeah, that's why I didn't phrase it as an objection outright. I will live with it if it comes to pass.

But generally, I don't see the point of bots and automatic posting. We have RSS for that. I follow webcomics over RSS, and if I see a strip that's worth sharing, I share.

Because I browse /all/new, any high volume posting is making the experience frustrating (eg the MEGA links for a while were very annoying).

In general, I'd say yeah, municipal-level politics, it can meaningful to participate (voting for council members, not for mayor), but I also haven't done it yet, because there wasn't a non-party affiliated list with ideas worth supporting yet, and running an electoral campaign for the municipal council is at this point not the priority of the far-left milieu in my town.

Another vote for Kdenlive. It's easy enough to use while having some of the features the other casual-user-oriented ones do not have.

Hyperbola probably has a recent enough version of Kdenlive, but Trisquel is probably on an old version, so not recommended. The rendering will be slow on an X200 unfortunately. I think there's no video encoding hardware acceleration on the GMA 4500MHD Intel Graphics chip it uses, so all the work will be done by the CPU.

A great feature of the Kdenlive in recent versions though, is the ability to work with "proxy clips". So you can make all the editing on low-resolution versions of the clips, and then switch to the full quality source files only for the export. It makes the editing process more tolerable on weaker computers.

It's something I often do when replying below quotes, it's a reflex to reply in the second person. I see how it's confusing, I'll try to preface it as "replying to the author" next time.

I'm not addressing you, I'm replying to what I am reading.

Thanks. Let's see

The web is an open platform, not a corporate platform.

Sure. But encouraging HTTPS is not going against openness, nor it is an example of Google's corporate dominance on the web (real examples exist, this is not one of them)

Also, if Google succeeds, it will make a lot of the web's history inaccessible.

That's an outright lie.

People put stuff on the web precisely so it would be preserved over time.

The web doesn't have this magical property, people have to go and make backups to keep things online. Linkrot exists, and it is unrelated to HTTPS.

The web is a social agreement not to break things. It's served us for 25 years.

Actually, that's unfortunately not the case. The internet was broken already. Not by HTTPS though. It was broken by the rise of the "web application", the proliferation of single-page JS applications, of EME, of closed/proprietary protocols, and of our tendency to prefer the easiness of centralised webservers.

I don't want to give it up because a bunch of nerds at Google think they know best.

I don't know what's the problem with nerds, but Google employees didn't invent HTTPS or were the first to realise how important it is. If anyone made HTTPS their priority, is EFF and Mozilla.

Keeping the web running simple is as important as net neutrality.

In this whole section, other than simply saying "HTTP is simple, HTTPS is complicated" as an axiom, no argument was presented to justify this.

They believe they have the power

They do have power, and they do abuse it often. Discouraging HTTP is not an example of abuse.

Many of the sites they will label as "not secure" don't ask the user for any information.

HTTPS is not just for privacy, it is also for integrity. Non-encrypted transport is open to manipulation.

Also, sometimes the privacy concerns do not arise from people eavesdropping on the information you submit, but also from thirdparties knowing what exactly you are reading.

but fail to mention that they can do it in the browser, even if you use a "secure" protocol

This statement is "a sleight of hand". It's a misdirection and it's not an argument against HTTPS.

Of course the browser controls website rendering. And that's a reason why people should not use Chrome. But the disprivileging of HTTP-only sites on Chrome is not related, and on its own it's positive.

yet still have valuable ideas and must be preserved.

Websites will not die because of HTTP being discouraged. Websites die for other reasons.

It's like a massive book burning, at a much bigger scale than ever done before.

Wow. The argumentation gets poorer and poorer as this goes on. That's an outright lie again.

Why force people to do it? This suggests that the main benefit is for Google, not for people who own the content.

Wow again.

If it were such a pressing problem we'd do it because we want to, not because we're being forced to.

Are you sure we want to apply that argument to other issues on the web then?

Because this argument will come in favour of web centralisation, in favour of Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon etc. People like them, therefore they must be good.

For me, the amount of work is prohibitive, even with Let's Encrypt, which people have told me about a huge number of times.

Honestly, just start with that, because the other excuses of an argument are doing you a disservice.

You didn't future proof your work, and you don't want to go back and retrofix everything. That's OK. Your stuff will not go away. People will discouraged of visiting them, and that's also OK.

I don't think anyone has the right to change the web so they no longer work.

Discouraging HTTP is not changing the web. It means that Chrome will have saner default settings. Mozilla should have done this first, imo.

The page linked is empty (is that a tacit recognition that there are no good arguments against TLS-as-default?)

The experiment was this, indeed using externally caused temporary blindness in one eye.

In real life, this is caused by undetected sight impairments during infancy that are specific to one eye. The brain starts ignoring the problematic eye and makes do with only the other one.

I read in linguistics classes that people with very little contact are unable to speak any language

Yeah, we observe that several human capacities require early stimulation before they can be developed, and if it doesn't happen in time, it doesn't look like one can recover. This includes Language (Lenneberg, etc), and 3D Vision (Hubel & Wiesel).

Fair enough, and that's why I gave quick summary of what I think it is the case, to reassure you that I'm not just being flippant.

I suspect you made a lot of assumptions from my two-word comment that was just matching the tone of the first commentator. It's not a deflection though, we really can't prove things in a system we do not know the limits of.

In earnest, my view is that there is stuff out there, but human understanding relies exclusively on abstraction, symbolic representation, and building models of the world. If we have useful (fit-for-purpose) models that make predictions which hold, then that model is "sort of" real. If we never hit upon outcomes that falsify it, and it explains the things we want explanations for, it's in a very strict sense as good as the reality.

That's what I mean with "sort of real".

There's no such thing as "proof" outside of maths and formal logic.

or why even have a boss?

Great question! I can't come up with any good reason.

Is anything “real?”

Sort of.

All Nationalisms lead to violence, not just the "exocentric" ones. I really do not see any meaningful distinction between Greek/Turkish Nationalism, and this Cypriot (?) Nationalism that you are proposing as a more "expected" option.

Which is why it's perverse for cypriots to identify

Cypriot is just another identification people may choose, like they can choose Greek/Turkish/Taiwanese/Maori. It's not more physically real than the other options.

It literally sustains you and sustained your ancestors for millennia.

That concept of "ancestors" is too metaphysical for me to identify with. I personally don't feel that sort of non-material connection.

I was pointing out their displaced nationalism doesn't make sense even by their own nationalist rhetoric because they're not Greek/Turkish, they're cypriot.

This is where I disagree: There is no objective measure of being Greek/Turkish/Cypriot/whatever. If they feel Greek, they are Greeks. If they feel Turkish, they are Turkish. If they feel Cypriot, they are Cypriot. And when I feel I am none, I am none.

There's no misalignment from the "correct" or "typical". Nationality is self-declared set membership (without precluding influence and pressure towards a choice).

Cyprus wasn't even a nation until 1960 after centuries of colonialism, so there's a clear distinction between Cyprus the land and the 'Republic of Cyprus' nation.

That's the terrible legacy of 19th Century Nationalism. People in the West cannot think of States without thinking of Nation States. The definitions seem to have collapsed into one. Yet, outside the West, most states are not nation states - and those who try to invent a nation (say, China comes to mind), do that with dubious results and with a lot of oppression.

RoC doesn't necessarily have to have a nation attached to it. There wasn't one created in 1960 by virtue of Cyprus becoming sovereign.

And Greek and Turkish nationalisms are nationalisms "for another land". The reason they are conflicting nationalisms is exactly because they claim that this island is part of the Greek/Turkish territory. It is nationalism precisely for this land.

And I think there's some merit to the observation that the historical era of Nations is well past. Most Nations created after the 20th century cannot consolidate themselves and become "psychologically real". So there won't ever be a Cypriot Nation, and frankly, that's good. Post-nationalism must win.