Objdct storage is anyway something I prefer over their app. Restic(/rustic) does the backup client side. B2 or any other storage to just save the data. This way you also have no vendor lock.

Yes, the whole discussion is around antitrust, and he thinks republicans have a chance to do better than democrats there. There is nothing to “bro” about, it’s pretty clear from the context. If he said any of that before the election, I could vaguely read an endorsement for single-issue voters. Saying republicans are better than democrats in fighting antitrust after Democrats shat their pants about it, doesn’t sound an endorsement to me.

The rest of this comment is out of topic. His focus (and his company focus) has always been on a specific political area. So there is no expectation that he would address the whole political scenario, when he was talking about that narrow area.

But he went out of his way to demonize the democratic party and somehow hold the Republicans up as the defenders of small business

So this is what bothers you? A completely legitimate critique of the democratic party? Well, I personally cannot care less, but you do you.

I see the issue as very simple: Him and his company work in the privacy space. Tech monopolies are a problem because captured people. Improving in this space is a win for privacy. Which is not something that is beneficial “in a vacuum”, it’s beneficial to all those vulnerable people that will be attacked by this government, or the next. he expressed optimism about the fact that republicans can do better than democrats here. Period. Naive, wrong, whatever. A legitimate opinion based on his reading of the last few years’ trend.

No endorsement, no “pledge loyalty”, nothing. Just a consideration. He also mentioned on his reddit account that ultimately actions will be what will count (as it is obvious). So to me this is legitimately a nothing burger. I cannot care less that people in US (and in many more places) live politics like a football game. I cannot care less that you or others got hurt because he criticized Democrats. They could and should do better, and then if the critique is unfair I will be there saying that he “goes out of his way” to criticize them. So far he clearly motivated his opinion with what Schumer did.

There are less than 10 companies that control almost the entire tech space. What “fewer choices”…?

Breaking up google would be already enough, which is what the focus was. All your comment sounds very fuzzy to me. Basically the whole antitrust thing is on google, if republicans break it up, great. Which " allies" are they going to bolster?

Republicans tech policy is motivated entirely by the fact that their racist and conspiratorial views were getting them banned on social media sites from 2015 - 2024

And i should care because…? Why should I care why republicans wanted to break up tech monopolies, if breaking monopolies is anyway something that I consider a positive change?

Breaking monopolies give people more choice. More choice (free) leads to hopefully people choosing more privacy conscious tools. More privacy means less data that can be handed over to doge, less data that ICE has to target minorities, etc.

then you either whole-heartedly agree that a group of criminals and wannabe dictators should be able to destroy any business that publishes speech against them, or you are extremely gullible.

Those are not the only 2 options. I am instead very happy that they will do the right thing for the wrong reason, and outside those monopolies more people will choose services that republicans have no power over. Moreover, your whole argument assumes someone is in US. I am sympathetic to the people in US, but tech monopolies are a global problem.

He didn’t endorse the republican party.

The fact that you inflate the meaning of that tweet to make it more meaningful than it is, doesn’t mean he did anything of the sort. The tweet happened after the election but before the government, and it was an endorsement of the antitrust appointee. He also expressed his opinion that republicans were more likely than democrats to fight big tech monopolies in the antitrust space. This is far from an endorsement.

It was also a completely unnecessary comment, in response to nothing.

It was in response to Trump’s tweet about the antitrust appointee. I would say quite relevant context for a tweet about the antitrust appointee.

It was unnecessary, true. Like every tweet. He expressed his unnecessary opinion, the same way we are doing now.

Andy praised Gail Slater publicly, and they even worked together.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ProtonMail/comments/1i2nz9v/on_politics_and_proton_a_message_from_andy/m7psmzx/

The premise is already wrong. There was no promise or loyalty, not even close.

Wow, those are big networks. Obviously I suppose in case of AWS it doesn’t matter as no human visitor (except maybe some VPN connection?) will visit from there.

As someone who bans /32 IPs only, is the main advantage resource consumption?

I presume you mean running Plex in host namespace. I don’t do that as I run the synology package, but I can totally see the issue you mean.

Running in host namespace is bad, not terrible, especially because my NAS in on a separate VLAN, so besides being able to reach other NAS local services, cannot do do much. Much much much less risk than exposing the service on the internet (which I also don’t).

Also, this all is not a problem for me, I don’t use remote streaming at all, hence why I am also experimenting with jellyfin. If I were though, I would have only 2 options: expose jellyfin on the internet, maybe with some hacky IP whitelist, or expect my mom to understand VPNs for her TV.

(which doesn’t harden security as much as you think)

Would be nice to elaborate this. I think it reduces a lot of risk, compared to exposing the service publicly. Any vulnerability of the software can’t be directly exploited because the Plex server is not reachable, you need an intermediate point of compromise. Maybe Plex infra can be exploited, but that’s a massively different type of attack compared to the opportunities and no-cost “run shodab to check exposed Plex instances” attack.

No that’s the thing. Plex can also use their infra as a tunneling system. You can have remote streaming without exposing Plex publicly and without VPN. It is slow though.

Well, as an application it has a huge attack surface, it’s also able to download stuff from internet (e.g., subs) and many people run it on NAS. I run jellyfin in docker, I didn’t do a security assessment yet, but for sure it needs volume mounts, not sure about what capabilities it runs with (surely NET_BIND, and I think DAC_READ_SEARCH to avoid file ownership issues with downloaders?). Either way, I would never expose a service like that on the internet.

Not to be “achtuallying” bit VPN is not a way to remote stream, it’s a way to bring remote clients in the local network.

Likewise exposing services on the internet…not really going to happen esepcially for people - like me - that run plex/jellyfin on their NAS.

I don’t have a horse in this race, i don’t use remote streaming, I only ever streamed from my nas to my 2 TVs, and I am experimenting with jellyfin. But for those who do need remote streaming, jellyfin is going to be problematic.

Oh, I guess different school systems, so that didn’t even come to mind to me. At least in my country high school is from 15 to 19, I think lots of people thankfully mature and change after teenage years.

1. Yes
2. Generally yes, but it depends. If I feel like my intervention can actually be useful, sure. For example, if anybody in my acquaintances would be doing that or be a victim of that. “Intervene” also would most likely be reporting or providing shelter, I am not Batman.

Note that both the answers are independent on whether the stalker is a man or not.

Yes, because “men” is such a stringent definition for a hedgemonic class. Half the population on earth, across different social statuses, nationalities, wealth, race, age, and so on. Honestly, claiming this is the “group in power” is absurd.

A completely poor analysis, what there is to reflect on?

Ironically that poster is an Israel supporter. By their own logic every Israeli should be victim of default “suspicion” and be treated like an IDF war criminal, since everyone has the “potential” to be one.

Actually, this argument would be even more compelling since Israel does have elections and you can emigrate/renounce to your citizenship, both not possible in case of manhood.

It’s bizarre that someone could come up with such a poor argument that ultimately boils down to: “people should be accountable for the actions of other people in the same demographic”, without realising there are tons of way you can divide people in demographics.

What places do you go? My pool is super chill, I have seen all kind of uplifting moments. Maybe certain gyms have a selection bias? I don’t know.

Precisely. It’s completely different from doing that in your group of friends, where confrontation is a way to establish common values, and in an internet cesspool where anyway I am going to be moderated out.

Just yesterday I was reading a great article about how social medias compare to TV when it comes to feeling part of a group. “Calling out” people in such places wouldn’t be anything else that virtue signaling (to yourself) to reaffirm your own identity (I stand up to sexism), and at the same time allow those people to reaffirm themselves (I get confronted because I am speaking truth).

Basically it would be at most a performance.

So you need a coordinated effort of thousands of people who will get continuously moderated, banned or censored. OK, I admit that it’s possible, but I think I’d rather invest my time in other ways…

because at least all men share the potential to act out problematic gender roles

Everyone (literally) has the potential to act out problematic gender roles, women included.

protect other men from female criticism because “they are different”

This sentence is legit incoherent. If a criticism doesn’t apply to someone, protecting against said criticism is quite literally preventing discrimination.

If men want to get rid of the collective suspicions

Or maybe we can criticize unfair collective suspicion in the same way summary judgments based on other categories are crticizised. I really can’t see how this argument does not lead to racism, sexism, etc. Being a man is not being part of a club, you don’t decide to join, you don’t subscribe to any value, you don’t have a steering committee that decides how “manhood” is by vote. Why tf anybody should be responsible to change a group that they are part of simply for biological reasons?