sketty

sketty wrote

You're going to always get a bunch of suggestions for encrypted/torified software with these types of questions. Obviously that will get you significant privacy gains in theory, but if you don't properly compartmentalize your activities, all the software will be pointless. The suggestions people have given already in terms of software are sufficient enough in terms of creating a strong base for maintaining anonymity in traffic, but I'd add that you should create different identities in accordance to different activities and be sure to never allow them to interact. That means not accessing two emails from two identities in the same browsing session, not giving out an email from one identity via another identity, not using the same email or voip twice for account verification, not sharing information through one identity that should presumably only be known by another identity, etc. Something that may help is keeping an encrypted drive of notes on your accounts, because this will become tedious, and you will slip up occasionally, but it is by far the most effective way to utilize anonymizing software.

3

sketty wrote

spooks as i understand them are social/ideological abstractions. things that can’t be predicated upon without having to appeal to something that doesn’t materially exist. that may in part involve revolution, but stirner doesn’t seem to take this as a contradiction. i don’t think he meant to do away with spooks so much as point them out so that we can arrange ourselves in ways that don’t inherently require their use. big take away from this is to take everything everyone says about stirner with a grain of salt

0

sketty wrote

singularity baiting is just unfalsifiable at best, for sure. but it seems like the argument against it in the article is a mischaracterization of moore's law. granted, moore's law is shit, but it is being oversimplified to the degree of mischaracterization in the article to somehow imply that, because capitalism sucks shit, processing power isnt increasing. which isn't true if you look into quantum computing. just saying i dont particularly like either sides of this conversation

2