nulloperation

nulloperation wrote

Reply to comment by CameronNemo in thoughts on GPL? by Ashy

but can they use MS office? And outlook?

Yes, they can.

Can they run iTunes and iCloud to sync their photos from their phone?

I was recently syncing photos off an iphone and icloud off Debian. Works fine.

bring a Debian live bootable USB drive

Have you ever done that?

Yes. Second-hand laptop shops where they are more patient.

I would bet 0 laptops being sold in a shop today would have working WiFi without firmware blobs.

There are some. I've run Trisquel on a random second-hand laptop with wifi. Atheros made some wifi drivers free. I usually go for Debian + nonfree firmware though, because usually the non-free wifi drivers work fine.

2

nulloperation wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by CameronNemo in thoughts on GPL? by Ashy

The second group is a lost cause.

Not sure. Recent Gnome Desktop releases are quite polished and MacOS-like, which I think helps people with that inconvenience.

When you purchase new hardware for yourself or others, consider how much nonfree software has to go into it.

An easy and practical way of doing this is to bring a Debian live bootable USB drive and ask to try it out on the device before you purchase it, because it's not really something you can ask staff at a tech shop: "Is the driver for the wireless card for this laptop releases under a free / libre license?"

1

nulloperation wrote

Reply to thoughts on GPL? by Ashy

by discouraging companies like apple, google, etc from using them,

Well, that's because GPL is more concerned with preserving the rights of the user rather than the rights of Apple and Google to spy on users and lock down their devices.

without worrying about legal issues, or stating changes, and forcing the same upon others.

Yes, GPL is copyleft and thus "forcing" derived software to be free. There's a lot of forcing in proprietary software though: forced upgrades, forced purchase, forced ads, forced spying; so it's not like using permissive licenses will be more "free".

A legal issue you could end up worrying about as a smaller developer is a big company taking your free/libre code and turning it into a proprietary project. Using permissive software licenses doesn't protect you from that, but GPL and especially AGPL can help you out there.

If you don't like the GPL, then don't use it for your software, fine, but it's an upside-down argument that the GPL is "strengthening the grip of proprietary software". Are falafels bad for veganism too, because Burger King and McDonalds are discouraged from making them?

2

nulloperation wrote

It depends on the software running on your phone. If your device has voice activation with Siri or Cortana or Google Voice Access, then it is by definition listening to you in order to respond to keywords. It would not be able to respond to something it wasn't listening to, obviously.

Now, you could disable those voice services, but you'd have to take the word of Google or Apple or Microsoft that it is really off, because much of the source code is proprietary and hence secret.

Same, if you install a Facebook spyware app and grant it permission to access your microphone, then you'd have to trust Facebook that they really do not listen to you once your call is done. We pinky swear that we're not listening to your microphone even though 99% of our income is from surveillance ad-tech!

To improve the situation, run a free / libre OS on your smartphone and use a free / libre app store. However, the phone modem will most likely still run non-free software, so it's not yet a perfect solution.

4

nulloperation wrote

Reply to comment by Ashy in advertising by Mirio

It's just Alpine Linux where you can use either Phosh, Plasma Mobile or Sxmo for interface. So you could just install Alpine in a VM, I think?

2

nulloperation wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by Ashy in advertising by Mirio

you can install a linux distro alongside android

If you want to skip the "alongside" part then check out postmarketOS. It's based on Alpine, which is a fabulous distro.

3

nulloperation wrote

Reply to comment by Ashy in advertising by Mirio

Unsandboxed Spotify?

This does not work with the snap Spotify package.
This might not work with the Flatpak Spotify package, depending on your system's shared libraries' version

5

nulloperation wrote

I think you have a desire to negate any criticism of veganism as an ideology or praxis, perhaps because it is crucial to your identity. Frankly, if this is the case, This is a shallow way to explore politics and I encourage you to try on other shoes before you keep on your walk.

Yea, when I see people who I love and respect for their work in fighting a cruel system being dismissed as "liberals" engaging "almost entirely [in] a consumer practice," then it saddens me. I feel the need to express why their work is of tremendous value to me. You are right that is a part of my identity, but how exactly is that shallow?

But to pretend there isn't substantial liberal recuperation happening in these examples you brought up, is to basically refuse to acknowledge the reality.

I think you are correct in this, and while that's also true for veganism, that's quite far from the initial assertion, that "veganism is a liberal ideology". There are many vegan anarchists and, yes, there's also a lot of anarchist anti-vegans spewing out a lot of bunk, like, say, Peter Gelderloos' apathetic argument that death isn't really sad anyway:

The Western tragic ideal, which is inextricable from the capitalist war against nature, presents death as a bad thing, and apparently so do some vegans, but to the rest of us, this only appears as philosophical immaturity.

I think the carnist bunk needs to be addressed the same way racist and sexist bunk needs to, and while I think you're making some valid points, this thread is still rich with nonsense carnist distortions. It's just sad in the same way racism and sexism is, especially in an anarchist space.

−1

nulloperation wrote

you're so deep into the blinders of liberalism you cannot see your surroundings.

Aw snap, the top anarchist in charge on Raddle has denied me membership of the exclusive anarchist club!

it certainly is liberal to go on USA's Democracy Now and talk about your non-violent "protest".

Yea, I hope you got to tell Graeber that he was wrong, and all those liberal BLM "protesters" demanding abolition of the police ... sheesh, I wouldn't want to be seen around one of those.

(I would find it more interesting if you addressed my points rather than resorting to name-calling and postulates about word definitions.)

Serious question though: What do you think then about vegans that do violent actions?

−1

nulloperation wrote

We can stop traffic deaths if we get rid of traffic. Maybe tearing down the signs will help!

Yea, there's some truth to that. I loved the article The forgotten history of how automakers invented the crime of "jaywalking".

It's killing a pig or killing a pig.

Yea, well, again, there's a quantitative difference. Looking away from the suffering of enslaved animals for a moment, eating a pig that has been fed soy its entire life is way less efficient that eating the soy directly, and hence kills more pigs.

I am also not sure where in the salad production the rape of pigs and pig transports come into the picture.

You can say the word nuance all you want, it doesn't change the fact that ethical vegans somehow think their diet is moral, other people's diet is immoral, while both of their diets are relying on the same violent system.

Yes, thanks again for educating me on what I somehow think. How would us vegans even know what we were thinking if not for the carnists explaining it to us?

I'm dismissive of vegans & politicizing one's diet. If it were up to me humans would be the endangered species. I am for animal liberation, what I am against is people giving a fuck what I eat, or neurotically policing what they eat - because what you eat is not the problem, civilization is the problem.

Yea, and I am a climate activist and all for reducing CO₂ emissions, but I'm quite dismissive to bicyclists as I prefer to fly around in my private jet. I'm just against bicyclists politicizing types of vehicles and policing my means of transport.

I'm also an anti-racist, although I love to yell racial slurs against anyone I think look foreign. I'm against people giving a fuck what I say, because that's not the problem. Civilization is.

1

nulloperation wrote (edited )

Why are you managing your own diet so particularly when literally everything you use or eat in this world kills animals, destroys the environment, and requires coerced labor?

Because nuances, because degrees, because in-betweens, because shades of gray. Omitting those, we can get strange conclusions:

  • Waged work is wrong in the first place, so why even bother to unionise?
  • We'll never eliminate traffic deaths, so why even have speed limits or seat belts or any road signs at all?
  • Your bathroom is never going to be totally clean anyway, so why don't I just take a shit on the floor?
  • People will all die at some point anyway, so why don't I just go shoot a whole bunch of them right away?

If your argument is that there's suffering happening no matter what you eat (and therefore, implicitly, the extend of suffering is irrelevant, so why bother?), then why would you consider cannibalism unethical? (Not that you have actually written that, but I am assuming...)

I'm aware that there may well have been some aphids killed in the process of growing the salad I'm eating. I discriminate based on the perceived capacity for the animal to suffer. I'd weigh harming an aphid below harming a pig, and harming a pig below harming a human. You would, too, I am sure.

Nuances, friend, nuances!

The question is why is that the baseline.

I think a reason why veganism is a baseline for some is that it sets high ambitions for reducing suffering while still being easy and practical to explain and to follow. Do you have any suggestions for alternative baselines? (that don't make you starve, while also not leading to increased indifference towards suffering)

If you care about the non-human, this whole thing's gotta go,

I agree! I AGREE! Yet the question still remains: In case the whole thing hasn't gone tomorrow, what do we do in the meantime?

Why are you managing your own diet so particularly when literally everything you use or eat in this world kills animals, destroys the environment, and requires coerced labor?

It goes beyond diet. Many vegans would consider it unvegan to buy wool or leather. And fighting against one aspect of environmental destruction and forced labour doesn't exclude fighting other aspects. You don't have to choose between solidarity with enslaved non-human animals and solidarity with, say, refugees. If you're anti discrimination by race, it doesn't mean that you're pro discrimination by gender, etc.

I agree that if someone was only focusing on animal liberation while being dismissive towards other struggles for liberation, then that would indeed be naive and narrow-minded. However, that isn't a mindset I've come across often, if ever. I can get suspicious that it may be an anti-vegan strawman (because I've heard it often) but, then again, I don't know what vegans you've been talking to.

4