streetfighter64

Let me quote you:

> there's a massive difference between transporting a private package from point A to point B vs hosting someone's speech on a privately owned platform and broadcasting that speech through a privately owned network, with wider consequences that do not come into play when dealing with private correspondences between parties.

If you think that this states what the difference and what the consequences are (in your mind), I don't know what to tell you except you have a vivid imagination. Sorry I'm not a mind reader. A tip for the future is actually stating what you mean, instead of some vague suggestion at it.

> but GDPR doesn't confer access

GDPR was given AS AN EXAMPLE. I never suggested it "confers access". That interpretation comes from your own inability to read what I have written three times now. I don't know how to be more clear with you. Perhaps you can give my comments to a LLM that can translate them into something more comprehensible for you, it seems English is neither your first nor second language.

> is irrelevant

For what? You know laws can change, don't you? Or do you just accept each and every law, in every country, as the way things should be?

I already told you: "just because the law is a certain way today, doesn't mean that's the way it should be. It used to be legal to kick people out of restaurants because you didn't like the color of their skin, it's not today. It used to be legal to fire people because they were members of a union or other political group, it's not today."

Sigh. Trolling, I should have known. Keep yourself safe.

Pretty good. I'm not ashamed to say that I argue because it's fun, and because I'm right (unlike you). I'm also not so desperate to have the last word that I'll post a comment entirely without substance (like you did, and probably will do again in reply to this).

What's your point? Do you mean "everyone is equally bad", so reducing your resource usage is pointless? Because that's not true, clearly.

Do you mean that owning any electronics at all is morally wrong? That's a more consistent point, but what are you posting from then?

This sort of all-or-nothing mentality is really reductive and pointless. It's like saying you shouldn't go to the gym unless you plan to become the worlds strongest man.

In my opinion, it is the responsibility of each and everyone to live as frugally w.r.t. the environment as possible, while keeping in mind that each of us has a job to manage in order to feed our families.

I own a phone, but it's as old as I can have in order to still have access to banking. I own a car, but it's as old as I could find while still driving well and being reasonably fuel efficient. I drive as little as I can, while still allowing myself to travel to meet family. I eat food but I buy organic and avoid imported food as much as possible. And so on.

Another important factor is that one should strive to improve the laws. Because clearly, reducing your own impact is not enough. And the political work one does, of course needs to be calibrated to what time one has available.

I'd never judge somebody for prioritizing family over political work, or buying a second-hand iPhone in order to save time on setting up a Fairphone or similar.

I will judge somebody who buys the latest car, or latest phone, or something like that. I will not judge but gently inform someone of the facts, if they buy meat that I consider coming from an unethical animal industry. And I will listen to a vegetarian if they'd like to inform me about the realities of the industry that produces the meat I eat, even though I personally consider it "ethical enough", because perhaps they'll change my mind.

Basically "Don't live beyond our collective means" = "Die".

Are you buying the latest iPhone every year? If not, you might as well be dead.

I wish people would realize that life is not about stuff. Living within your means, being frugal and focusing on what really matters (time with family, experiencing nature, thinking interesting thoughts) is not at all "permanent existential hibernation".

I resent the "The Dead Great-Grandfather Test" and similar "growth"-at-all-costs ideologies. Its implications are disgusting.

> then it doesn’t make finding the bug more likely for any independent researcher

See, I think the issue is that you misread my original comment, because this is an entirely wrong interpretation of it. Obviously I'm not saying that for any one given researcher who's already chosen to focus on PHP, that changes anything.

I suppose all your whining about strawmen and mental gymnastics is just you being unwilling to accept that (a) you misread my comment and (b) your reasoning in your reply was entirely illogical.

You know you can just stop replying if you want right? No need to tell me about it.

"A rumor" or a confirmation by the maintainers that the bug exists? Oh well, I guess you believe the that Fermat's statement of his Last Theorem had absolutely no effect on how quickly or slowly it got solved. After all, it was just a rumor. It probably had no effect at all on how many mathematicians chose to try to solve it or not.

> you are changing what you said and now you’re fighting a straw man.

Not really. I think the issue is just reading comprehension on your part. Go back and read my original comment again and see if you understand it better this time. You made a ridiculous argument, which I responded to, how is that a strawman?

> Go find some bugs lol

I still don't understand what your deal is? Why do you think I'd be interested in that? It seems like a pretty basic concept that a person can know of a thing being possible without being personally interested in doing it?

You don't see any difference between the maintainers of PHP telling the whole world, "try to find a bug in PHP in 24h", and one random guy on the internet telling another random guy on the internet to try to find a bug in Nginx, Apache or IIS? Surely making all interested security researchers with time on their hands focus on one thing with a specific deadline has no effect on the probability of finding a bug in that thing?

That's why I write "should" and not "does". And in the UK and the EU, corporations also have more rights than they should (according to my worldview anyway). I think you should find the UK and EU laws disturbing in the same way as the USA's. Corporations also have way less liabilities (example: imagine if you could deduct your "operating expenses" (e.g. food) from your taxes, in the same way corporations do) and face way less penalties for their misdeeds than you do, which a bigger problem.

1. It has happened before

2. Even if it hadn't, some occurrence of any given event has to be the first

3. Who claimed no other targets are vulnerable in the same way?

What a dumb "gotcha" argument.

> Me: AI models can solve open math problems

> You: Well then go do that and come back with a proof of [insert whatever conjecture]. I'll wait.

What you're saying is "I don't believe it's possible to do thing X unless you personally demonstrate it to me, despite the fact it's verifiably been done before by others".

I'm not claiming I personally will find any critical security vulnerabilities in "Nginx, Apache and IIS". But you seem to be claiming that nobody in the world ever will?

> when you are utilizing a privately owned platform for free, you are not entitled to anything.

Factually wrong. Both when paying, and when using something "for free", there's a contract in place (terms & conditions, etc.), and that contract also needs to obey local laws. I don't know if you've ever heard of GDPR, but that's one example of things you are entitled to when using a "privately owned platform for free". Even the USA has laws regarding this, though less strong than GDPR (look it up).

> refuse to ship your package based on an any legal criteria they choose

The question here is what is a "legal criteria". And just because the law is a certain way today, doesn't mean that's the way it should be. It used to be legal to kick people out of restaurants because you didn't like the color of their skin, it's not today. It used to be legal to fire people because they were members of a union or other political group, it's not today. (All depending on your country's laws of course.)

Also, the point of an analogy, is to illustrate a point through a comparable situation. Pointing out that there's a "massive difference" but never explaining what the difference is and how it affects the validity of the comparison, is just a (very common) misunderstanding of what an analogy even is.

Did you try reading my comment before replying? Because I never claimed anything close to "the only consistent viewpoints are ..." Reading what I wrote might also give you a clue as to what argument I was referring to, because it's not what you "suspect".