The point of having nukes is to threaten destruction of an enemy even at the cost of one's own destruction. Analysts understand that actually using nuclear weapons benefits no one. Nukes don't benefit the party that launches nukes upon event X taking place, the party that causes event X, or most bystanders. Saying that any party responsible for event X will be nuked is intended to ensure that event X doesn't occur. Threats are not reality: threatening retaliation is not the same as actually retaliating.

Some facts have been simplified in this reply. Reality is more complicated but these basic principles do seem to hold most of the time.

A Layer-3 (network-layer) blacklist risks cutting off innocent CGNAT and cloud users. What you're proposing is similar to mechanisms that already exist (e.g., access control lists at the ISP level work by asking computer B which requests it wants to reject and rejecting those that originate from computer A). However, implementing any large-scale blocking effort beyond the endpoint (i.e. telling an unrelated computer C to blackhole all requests from computer A to computer B) would be too computationally expensive for a use case as wide and as precise as "every computer on the Internet".

Also, in your post you mentioned, "A host would need to have a way to identify itself as authoritative, responsible for the IP address in question." This already happens in the form of BGP though it doesn't provide cryptographic proof of ownership unless additional mechanisms are in use (RPKI/ROA).

I assume good faith unless clear evidence indicates otherwise. I try to adopt a more general version of WP:AGF in life.

If you mean an anonymous account from an email service trusted by other online service providers, it's not possible to get one for free. Even among paid email providers, very few accept anonymous payment methods such as cash or XMR.

Saying "give up all technology now that it has been introduced" and "it is impossible to enhance the good aspects of technology while eliminating the bad" are both misguided ideas and amount to offering no ideas for improving the world. (quotes paraphrased)

Edit: I forgot to add that, in his manifesto, he literally wrote that killing people who have certain diseases is more efficient than curing those diseases because "People with a genetic tendency to [diseases] will then be able to survive and reproduce as well as anyone else. Natural selection against genes for [diseases] will cease and such genes will spread throughout the population."

Excess opioid use can cause dependence and increase tolerance to the painkilling effects faster than tolerance is built to the effects it has on respiration. As such, certain types of opioids are exceptionally dangerous when abused without mechanisms to deal with overdoses. Therefore, we say that abusing opioids is bad for health.

On the other hand, we can take the example of the early human who found joy in gathering food. Similar to the argument about "pathways being influenced", we see that neural pathways are reinforced because of repeated concentration on the same goal. However, treating this as an addiction means that once this "addiction" is cured, humans will no longer want to get food. That means that humans will suffer adverse effects due to giving up the desire to gather food. Someone particularly ignorant could even extend this argument to call water and oxygen addictive.

Clearly, a line must be drawn to distinguish between things that are addictive and those that are not. You gave the example of reading and said that excessive concentration causes reading to behave in mechanisms similar to drugs and I totally agree with that statement. However, the fact remains that reading does not cause negative impacts on health despite repeated exposure to reading whereas the same is not true for drugs.

Since you asked for a narrower and non-speculative explanation of the fact that drugs do damage and books do not, let me ask a concrete question in reply. You stated that you have taken psychedelics in the past. Do you feel that if you had encountered a bad episode, you would have had the ability to leave the episode immediately? Would there have been a way to flush all psychedelics from your body? Clearly, with books, you can just stop reading the book, throw it in a paper shredder, or burn it to ash. Can you do the same with all drugs? Is reversibility really that easy for every single drug?

One could argue that binge reading is harmful and I totally agree. But the overall benefits of reading are sufficiently powerful as compared to the extremely low rate of addiction.

In fact, if looking at DSM-5 criteria, we can almost entirely ignore all points related to social impairment as reading is a major social obligation in a lot of places. Similarly, tolerance does not build up when reading. Another example of DSM-5 criteria we can ignore is the fact that physical and psychological problems do not occur. In fact, we can say that the only meaningful criteria are those related to withdrawal and those related to impaired control.

In books, the rate of impaired control is generally negligible as is the rate of withdrawal. Similar to how someone who drinks fifty litres of water a day is generally considered addicted to water, so is a person who reads instead of eating, taking care of personal hygiene, and sleeping. Yet the general rate of both water addiction and reading addiction is absurdly low when compared to the benefits.

Generally, books are considered non-addictive because they enhance one's quality of life without causing negative health effects. It is a non-speculative fact that books have very little adverse effects. Requiring concentration alone is not sufficient to call something addictive. While it is true that anything done in excess is bad (e.g., getting too much oxygen or water), most people read in moderation. Something addictive needs to be damaging to the general quality of life. That is precisely why all pharmaceutical drugs given for medical purposes are given with one question in mind: will taking a given drug increase or decrease the quality of life in the short and long term.

NOTHING IN THIS REPLY CONSISTS OF MEDICAL ADVICE

I have not added inline citations as I do know which of these points are likely to be challenged. For further reading, please read about the DSM-5 criteria.

DS1-8, DS10-12 full zips are available via torrents. However, some DS9 files are believed to have never been uploaded completely in the first place.

I agree Melania can be seen as a passive participant. I never objected to you being critical of her. Instead, my issue was with the reason you gave, which compares survivors of sexual abuse to an embodiment of evil. That comparison is deeply offensive to people who were abused. Calling my response “virtue signaling” misreads me: I genuinely found your message hurtful.

There were many people who experienced Trump, Epstein etc. "cumming in them" through no fault of their own. Please don't compare survivors of sexual abuse to an entity that many associate with evil.

There is no central location to donate to open source software in general. Most open source projects include donation details on their website or in their code repositories.

%20 is the URL-encoded form of a space; %25 is the URL-encoded form of the percent sign. The URL you are posting gets re-encoded and % becomes %25 (in the same way that a space becomes %20)

Could the app be using cell tower data to bypass mock location settings? The Github repository says it identifies a user's location using cell tower data.

99% isopropyl alcohol is ideal as a solvent or cleaning agent for industries that produce water sensitive items, therefore rapid evaporation and low water content is favorable. 99% USP IPA provides the lowest presence of water and in some forms is free from denaturants. Computer technicians, medical device manufacturers, printed circuit board manufacturers, and soldering and rework technicians prefer immediate evaporation for work with sensitive devices such as integrated circuit adapters, computer chips, and circuit boards. 99% IPA evaporates cleanly and minimizes residual substances. Rapid evaporation reduces shelf life but is more effective against sticky residues, grease, and grime than 70% concentrations. Because isopropanol is hygroscopic, acetone may yield better grime fighting results for inks or oils.

The URL you shared recommends using 99% IPA for electronics.

Planners do a lot of preparatory work before laying cables, but based on the few articles and studies I could find online, it appears they rarely share their findings with the public.

Sabotage can also be carried out without submarines. For example, a ship could drag its anchor along the seabed (whether in the Baltic Sea or the Taiwan Strait) near known locations of internet cables.

If I recall correctly, there were multiple posts in different communities.

I assume that trolls try to provoke erratic and disproportionate reactions from others, becoming a part of their own miniature sitcom for their own entertainment. It could be because of a sense of victory upon watching others break down (assuming a zero sum point of view). It could be the viewpoint that trolls are at their own higher level compared to others and understand each other while making fun of the lower levels (a false sense of superiority). Maybe it's a [case of] holding onto their own beliefs and assuming that they needn't change themselves if they disrupt all conversations that may cause harm to their own beliefs. It might be attention seeking or an escape mechanism. It could also be a desire to avoid fitting in with everyone else and remaining separate.

(edit: grammar)

There are some generic observations you can use to identify whether a story was AI generated or written by a human. However, there are no definitive criteria for identifying AI generated text except for text directed at the LLM user such as "certainly, here is a story that fits your criteria," or "as a large language model, I cannot..."

There are some signs that can be used to identify AI generated text though they might not always be accurate. For instance, the observation that AI tends to be superficial. It often puts undue emphasis on emotions that most humans would not focus on. It tends to be somewhat more ambiguous and abstract compared to humans.

A large language model often uses poetic language instead of factual (e.g., saying that something insignificant has "profound beauty"). It tends to focus too much on the overarching themes in the background even when not required (e.g., "this highlights the significance of xyz in revolutionizing the field of ...").

There are some grammatical traits that can be used to identify AI but they are even more ambiguous than judging the quality of the content, especially because someone might not be a native English speaker or they might be a native speaker whose natural grammar sounds like AI.

The only good methods of judging whether text was AI generated are judging the quality of the content (which one should do regardless of whether they want to use content quality to identify AI generated text) and looking for text directed at the AI user.

If I understand the model you proposed correctly, it basically consists of making a payment to someone (whether an instance or a central authority), obtaining tokens in exchange, giving tokens to a content creator, and the content creator exchanging them to get their money back.

Having a central authority wouldn't work because it goes against the principles of the Fediverse and most users would prefer that there not be a single point of failure. Having an instance exchange money for tokens wouldn't work because there is no scarcity of tokens and no guarantee that an instance honours a request.

This method could instead be replaced by content creators adding links to receive payments with people giving money to them directly.

The problem is that there is nothing meaningful you can exchange this currency for. The Fediverse is fundamentally designed to allow anyone to start a server. There is no meaningful way to reward someone with anything of value except the satisfaction of having helped grow the instance they are supporting. There is no good way to boost someone without manipulating the vote count or changing the protocol itself. Many apps already offer customizability while simultaneously being free as in free beer and free as in free speech. The main reason many people move to the Fediverse is to escape an internet where everything is "enshittified," and most Fediverse users wouldn't want to shift to a proprietary model.