md_ wrote

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.


md_ wrote

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).

Reply to comment by /u/amongstclouds in Is 'love' real? by /u/ziq


md_ wrote

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".


md_ wrote

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.


md_ wrote

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.


md_ wrote (edited )

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.


md_ wrote

There's a saying: όπου γης και πατρίς, ubi bene ibi patria, home is where I lay my head to sleep.

Of course, I care much more and in a more visceral way about the politics of the place I live in. But that's because I live there, and I am affected by them. Not because of a metaphysical link to a national hivemind. Just because I experience the consequences immediately.

My culture and my history are things I build by constructing a model that privileges some facts over others (and that's an ambivalent description).

The food is definitely not "mine". There's hardly any area of culture that exhibits more syncretism than food.


md_ wrote


Why should I care about biological descent? Biology has never 1:1 matched culture. Culture makes vague appeal to biology every now and then, but even during the darkest times when "scientific racism" was instituted, culture ultimately remained arbitrary (see "Honorary Whites").

And in any case, if you throw your support behind the genes argument, you will undermine your point, because on average, we have statistically significant percentages of Greek and Turkish (and Armenian, and Iraqi, and Lebanese and other unsurprising sources) gene markers in male-descent DNA.

I don't want to buy into an argument that will nudge me towards, or even force me to identify as a nationality just because a genetic test says so. That line of thinking is alien to much of leftism, and definitely alien to anarchism.

call themselves

All humans do is call themselves things that are abstractions which don't exist in material/measurable form.


md_ wrote

Nationalism I can almost understand, but nationalism for another nation

To be honest, I don't see why you would call it "nationalism for another nation". Nations are imaginary communities one may participate in. They don't have a "natural", "default", or "expected" nation that they should join, to make it weird for them to join a "different" one.


md_ wrote (edited )

do you mean that there were other people there prior to that

Yes, there were humans before, and fragments of their non-Indo-European language are attested, but their culture has no continuity.

Summing up from Wikipedia: Cyprus was first settled by Homo Sapiens around 10,000 BCE. Around 1500 BCE settlement by Mycenaean Greeks became significant, from around 1100 BCE the non-Indo-European language (and probably the culture associated with it, but we don't know much about pre-Greek culture in Cyprus) started losing ground, and by 333 BCE it became fully Hellenised. Then several ways of other -isations followed, until ultimately 19th Century capital-N Nationalism became a thing.

your nation

It's not my nation, I don't belong to any. They claim me to be part of their nation, but they have no legitimacy in doing that.


md_ wrote

The nationalists who claim me as part of their nation also claim continuity with the cultures that colonised the island I live on approximately 3500 years ago. Whether there's really continuity is probably unknowable, but it doesn't matter because nations are imaginary things.

Of course, as far as ancestry goes, I don't have a clue about my genetics, nor I care to find out. I know that up to my grandparents generation, nationalists claimed us as part of their nation, but we generally weren't interested in those abstractions and imaginary communities, because we have to worry about subsistence and not dying in their stupid conflicts with people who belonged in other imaginary communities.

I do have some tangible benefits by virtue of being registered in state population registries as part of that nation they tell me I belong to. What I do about it is working towards dismantlement of said state, and for implementing some kind of social anarchism in its place.


md_ wrote

edit: Damn, turns out that nipper is gendered as well...

I'd say that if you have to consult a dictionary to know that the word is gendered (as opposed to readily knowing that it is), then in reality it isn't gendered.

I had to go to the 5th definition on Wiktionary to find a gendered use of the word, and it is marked as a "historical" definition.


md_ wrote

I believe you. I probably disagree, and I would protest those changes if they ever came here though.

I think the end goal of Uber and the like is to reinvent buses, but do it in a way that offers workers no protection, and it has none of the environmental benefits of mass transport networks.


md_ wrote

and people fucking hate having to use cash for taxis

I think you are using terms that are too absolute here. This is the first time I'm hearing that people who use taxis hate paying in cash.

I'm more than ready to accept that this is the case where you live, obviously. It's not the case where I live though. For me personally, paying for transportation with a credit card is very uncomfortable actually.

From a technical standpoint, both options can be implemented in the same system.


md_ wrote

Too bad it's cash-only, makes it essentially useless. No one wants to use that.

That's bizarre. The usual reasons you would want an alternative to Uber are also reason to prefer paying in cash.

Maybe a more complete solution will use GNU Taler.


md_ wrote

Yeah, I can sympathise with that too. The costs of treatment are the first fear that comes to my mind. Where I live, in my socioeconomical position, acquiring HIV would pretty much end my life. Treatments are perhaps a decade behind than other places in the world, and there's no universal healthcare, or much in the way of a welfare system that helps HIV+ people remain part of the society.

It's a difficult question for me because both sides are reasonable.