I didn't say the point was attracting the mainstream. The point is more that after anyone (mainstream or not, but more likely 'not') is banned from Twitter, Youtube, etc. and they realize that complaining isn't going to reverse the ban, what do they do?
"Errr, crap, where can I talk now? Wait, what was the name of that free space place again? That insane meme-factory, something 'chan' I think..."
I don't particularly relish 4chan being the last (or the last well known) bastion of free speech, but it's better than nothing. Hopefully if Twitter, Youtube and the rest continue in their war on "hate speech" (which now includes statements like "Yes, I do in fact 'hate' all Muslims, at least in principle, because they preach and propagate nonsense."), we'll eventually get a few more choices, but for the moment we should take what we can get.
Actually, on closer examination it seems neither Ashkenazi nor Sephardi are "identical" to ethnically Arabic peoples in the region. I'd look into this further but I'm frankly just not that interested. Putting aside some interesting but extremely controversial arguments about whether specific genes for enhanced intelligence might some day be isolated and found to be more prevalent in one race or another... in the context of our discussion, racism is about culture, not genetics.
the Jews have suffered the most and it also implies that they are non-white.
Jews are not white. They are, genetically, the same as Palestinians. No one would ever say a Palestinian was white.
You're thinking of Sephardic Jews. My post was implicitly dealing with Ashkennazi Jews, the primary victims of the Holocaust and the majority of the Jewish diaspora in America. You can argue (as many others have) that they are non-white as well. I don't hugely care myself, but other than some parts of the extreme right, I think the overwhelming majority of modern America treats them as white.
So you just conveniently cherry pick dates. It's called moving the goalpost.
No, you disingenuous twit. As I just clearly explained, the OP originally planted the goalpost by using the phrase "today's ills". In my original reply, I clearly indicated that I was addressing this specific topic via my use of the word "modern." You are the only one who is attempting to move the goalpost here.
Sure. I've also heard of "Israel", that thing that popped up after the Holocaust that much of the left wants to constantly demonize and insist that we not support in in any way. I also vaguely recall something about my country fighting against the country that perpetrated the Holocaust.
I also remember the killing fields in Cambodia, the horrific oppression in Tibet, Rwanda (bonus points for the first one to blame this entirely on whitey), the Armenian genocide, etc. Some of these things happened pretty recently, whereas there are very few people still alive today who actively participated in the Holocaust.
The OP said "today's ills". The Holocaust is many things, but it is not "today's ills" by any reasonable definition of the term. This isn't about exonerating our past or current crimes; it's about pointing out this ludicrous, self-destructive streak on the left that unironically asserts that white/western/American self-flagellation is a panacea for the world's ills.
You know what happens when white men really become angry? Everybody else ends up in a mass grave, that's what happens.
Cambodia, Tibet, Rwanda, Turkey, Saddam-era Iraq, etc.
You want to argue Hitler trumps stuff like that, fine, but that requires admitting (rightly or wrongly) that the Jews have suffered the most and it also implies that they are non-white.
This might come back to bite you in the ass if you ever want to argue that some disputed cases of land theft in the immediate aftermath of that persecution were the worst atrocities ever committed and our current support of Israel is therefore entirely unjustified.
Except those are mostly what are known as "lies", not facts. The worst cases of modern oppression and extermination have certainly not been committed by 'white' people, particularly if we further limit it to those white peoples that are traditionally considered to make up 'the West' (and thus exclude the attempted ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, which America and Western Europe opposed.) And you are free to look up the statistics on rape and molestation yourself; the causative agents are more complicated than either side wants to admit, but using a simple and naive survey of the facts the racist-tinged radical right of today usually comes off looking a lot better than the 'reverse'-racist radical left.
And it doesn't help your cause that gay white men (including but certainly not limited to aberrant right-wingers like Milo) are being removed from their former place of victimhood. I'm not at all sure what the radical left hopes to accomplish by intentionally ejecting millions of people from their base.
The really sad part is, you guys could've easily taken the wind out of the sails of the alt-right by simply being rational and favoring free speech, but instead you've chosen to double-down on that reactionary white-bashing that, while kinda cute and perhaps even thought-provoking in the 1990s, comes off as rather delusional and self-destructive in 2016. You've given people like Milo the high ground, and it's going to take you at least half a generation to get it back.
It may be sad but it is by now obvious that brand name means absolutely everything when it comes to social media; the technical specifics of the platform are a fairly minor side concern.
And this may be even sadder, but when it comes to social media brand names that have an association with free speech 4chan is still one of the biggest names in town. I can entirely appreciate why Milo would want to buy it.
sad that so called social media as they expand try to restrict speech to what is acceptable in a drawing room of bourgeois white women, and internet has to depend on a self described faggot troll to consciously create a truly free speech haven.
Whatever the larger implications are for the state of free speech on the internet, I think that a "self-described faggot troll" is pretty much what one would expect from a would-be savior of 4chan.
An x86-based Pi won't be any easier than an ARM based Pi because it won't have the full BIOS, PCI bus, keyboard controller, A20 gate control, southbridge, northbridge etc that the x86 Linux kernel de-facto targets.
Those technologies should be exiting patent alongside the x86 processors themselves. It's a pity that we won't have a SoC exit patent anytime soon (unless there's something I'm not aware of), but it should still be possible to produce a very cheap board that's capable of running arbitrary Linux distros (and also a few non-Linux OSes) basically right out of the box.
That baggage existed a few years ago, but unless someone managed to somehow get an extension on some key patents (I'm fuzzy on how that works) we should fast be approaching the point where the fundamental technology are royalty-free. It's true that the SoCs will still be patent-encumbered but the 'support chips' of 20-30 years ago should also be exiting patent status. Trademark issues are easily bypassed, though they can sometimes make the marketing a little trickier.
I'm not sure if you've noticed, but Nate Silver stopped laying golden eggs months ago. It's more than just black swans; he's been spectacularly slow to acknowledge the limitations of his field and of his own personal assumptions.
You can get low end ARM parts for less than a Euro.
But how indicative is this of the way things must be? The 386 is over 30 years old. 686 procs are 20 years old. All we need is one company who can envision a market segment for low cost x86 (something like Raspberry Pi x86?) so that someone will put in the legwork required to develop a royalty-free or low-royalty product.
Yeah, that's precisely what I mean. Saying that gotos are inherently dangerous is fine as a loose rule of thumb, but if you're willing to make your function more fragile or less clear in a slavish, automatic deference to that rule of thumb...
If you would care to read a bit more carefully, you would see that I never said that ifs and gotos were the same thing.
People often describe goto as "unconditional jump" but that's a pretty misleading descriptor. It obviously can be used in a very specific and conditional manner; it's just that it can easily penetrate or break out of other flow control mechanisms in arbitrary ways. Sometimes that results in clearer code, sometimes not. It's never my first instinct, and like I said I haven't used it all that often.
I'm usually pro- splitting things into smaller functions but having multiple exits are not going to make your code safer or easier to read vs. a goto. If moving it into another function isn't serving any another purpose then you're probably just making your code harder to follow. It's not about using gotos on a regular basis; it's about avoiding the cargo cult mentality that gotos inherently cause problems.
And what is this whimpyness about a bit of clear language? PC does not get engineering done. Pretending mistakes are not serious kills engineering.
Well I don't know, some people really like to pass the buck instead of admitting that their failures or the failures of their peers have screwed over hundreds of millions of people.
And as for PC language, hell, I've even seen people whine that you're "stalking" them if you mention that you're going to double-check their claims.
I tend to think rules like "Don't use GOTO" are a good indicator of someone's critical thinking ability. If they make a strong effort to avoid it, that's fine. If they stand there and lecture me that I should be using some convoluted crap instead of a simple, intelligently labeled GOTO to escape from some tangled mess of ifs and loops (not infrequently a mess that was originally created by the speaker) then they may well be very analytical and capable people, but you can't ever trust them to come up with something original or to spot a truly bad idea when they're in a group environment.
And then there's another of people, whose eyes glaze over completely when you try to say "Look, every single If-then-else has an implicit GOTO. This bit right here is fundamentally a conditional jump as well, but it doesn't look good to structure it using only Ifs because..." These conversations invariably end with them wandering away mute (if they're peers) or "don't use GOTO. It's against best practices" if they're supervisors.
I doubt I've used it a dozen times in my life, but I've received grief over almost every single time.
I skimmed it but didn't see a list of all the factors they tested for. Did it include fear of Islam? Dissatisfaction with government? A desire to see change (any change) ?
I'm not pro-Trump but I really think this black and white thinking is dangerous. Sure, most fascists are voting for Trump, except for the ones who are "throwing away their vote" on a third party. And most of the Communists are voting for Hillary, except for the ones who are "throwing away their vote" on a third party. Neither block is all that big a concern right now.
I very briefly considered going pro-Trump under a few lines of reasoning, one of them being that he might burn down the right and let something else grow in its ashes, preferably by further splitting the religious conservatives away from the rest. (I now tend to believe that a Trump loss is more likely to accomplish this than a Trump victory.) A lot of people are pro-Trump for fiscal reasons (which I do think is pretty misguided.) A lot of people are pro-Trump for immigration security reasons, which... is painful to say but as stupid as his shit is, once it gets toned down and made legal by his advisors (his first suggestion for a problem is usually illegal) it becomes less stupid than Hillary's.
On a wide variety of topics, the mainstream left is no longer interested in pursuing a reasonable pro-freedom (genuine freedom, not freedom fries jingoistic crap) agenda. Bruce Perens, a reasonable enough guy in most respects, appears to be a prototypical example--he refuses to concede that there should be any ideological test for new prospective citizens whatsoever. You can be openly anti-free speech, anti-freedom of religion, pro-dictatorship, pro-summary justice, pro-'America should be given back to the British', pro-murder (as long as you don't claim to be interested in doing it yourself), whatever, but according to Perens and millions like him we must not contemplate being at all selective in whom we invite in to live here. You can come live here under the protection of our constitution, even if want to see that constitution burn.
With a lot of people, this particular issue first appears to be confusion with rights granted to birthright citizens (of course we can't kick people out of the country they were born in), or a general ignorance of how other countries do things (virtually no one has open borders, and you can't even visit countries like the UK at all if you're famous for having horrible political views), but even after a long discussion I've never seen anyone reconsider their initial stance on this issue.
The left is defining themselves as being anti-right, instead being of pro-liberty and pro-equality... which is horrifying. More horrifying than Trump wanting to ban all travel from certain countries (which is still pretty dumb, of course. And also unlawful back when he was saying on the basis of religion instead of country.) It's not terrifying because I live in mortal fear of terrorist attacks, but because it may lead to more and more people becoming disillusioned with the left's going dogmatism.
“If this is joking around, I’m no longer amused," Cenk Uygur, creator and host of The Young Turks, said on the program. "This is exactly how fascism starts.”
That's not how fascism starts. That's just some low level bully stuff. Arrest him for facilitation or petty theft or something, if indeed it is a crime to order someone to take away someone's coat, then he can get 5 days in prison for misdemeaor whatever, some great fun for the media and then we move on. If it's not a crime, then don't arrest him. Being a dick who says dumb shit don't lead to fascism. If Howard Stern were elected, it wouldn't lead to fascism.
It's the best that can be hoped for. I'm shocked they cared at all. People who're that worried shouldn't be using exit nodes at all without a post-Tor VPN hop. Costs perhaps $3 per month, payable by gift cards. Bypasses this issue entirely and also puts a much needed layer between you and the exit node.
Half of the people who're paranoid about this sort of thing don't even bother to use Whonix, which (with a snapshot on VB, or after they fix it to be a proper DispVM on Qubes) doesn't force you have to micromanage anything at all for the best* possible tracking protection between sessions. The easiest to use option is also not uncommonly the most secure, but some people just have to be unreasonably fancy about everything.
* Ignoring traffic analysis, which is a very... specific vector and on a low latency system will always be losing battle anyway.
Like I said, I'll be devoting something on the order of 5 min/day to this, perhaps 10. You'd have to write on the same complexity level of gweihir, and include similarly glaring errors, for me to be able to scan through all your posts that quickly.
I think that the missing piece here is paternalistic conservatism--this variety is very weak in America. As delusional and hypocritical as they can be regarding "big government", they do ultimately have a vision that's rooted in individualism. It's a sickly form of individualism, but it's fundamentally rather different from that aristocratic, pragmatic, paternalistic conservatism found in much of the rest of the world. The religious component is important key here. People in Russia might be fairly religious, sure, but how many of them believe they are living in the end times and at any minute the Antichrist is going to pop up and try to implant a ID chip in their hands as part of his plan for world domination? As I recall, 20-30% Americans believe something like that. Discriminating against gays and Muslims is one thing; actually behaving in an overtly dictatorial manner is quite another. America is probably the most patriotic country on Earth and that patriotism is almost entirely rooted in the idea of freedom. The moment they or their immediate family feel violated, I think there will be pushback.
Also, It doesn't receive a lot of attention, but despite years of gradual erosion of states' rights (largely because people keep trying to use that as an excuse for institutionalized bigotry) we are still fifty different states with fifty different governments and completely separate police forces.
Plus, it must be repeated: Trump is ultimately empty and uncaring and unintelligent, and his party does NOT like him. You can point at his quotes all day long; whence comes the follow through? How does this page in the history book read that ends with him actually having the drive and daring to risk imprisonment or assassination by trying to do dictator stuff?
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say the point was attracting the mainstream. The point is more that after anyone (mainstream or not, but more likely 'not') is banned from Twitter, Youtube, etc. and they realize that complaining isn't going to reverse the ban, what do they do?
"Errr, crap, where can I talk now? Wait, what was the name of that free space place again? That insane meme-factory, something 'chan' I think..."
I don't particularly relish 4chan being the last (or the last well known) bastion of free speech, but it's better than nothing. Hopefully if Twitter, Youtube and the rest continue in their war on "hate speech" (which now includes statements like "Yes, I do in fact 'hate' all Muslims, at least in principle, because they preach and propagate nonsense."), we'll eventually get a few more choices, but for the moment we should take what we can get.
Actually, on closer examination it seems neither Ashkenazi nor Sephardi are "identical" to ethnically Arabic peoples in the region. I'd look into this further but I'm frankly just not that interested. Putting aside some interesting but extremely controversial arguments about whether specific genes for enhanced intelligence might some day be isolated and found to be more prevalent in one race or another... in the context of our discussion, racism is about culture, not genetics.
the Jews have suffered the most and it also implies that they are non-white. Jews are not white. They are, genetically, the same as Palestinians. No one would ever say a Palestinian was white.
You're thinking of Sephardic Jews. My post was implicitly dealing with Ashkennazi Jews, the primary victims of the Holocaust and the majority of the Jewish diaspora in America. You can argue (as many others have) that they are non-white as well. I don't hugely care myself, but other than some parts of the extreme right, I think the overwhelming majority of modern America treats them as white.
So you just conveniently cherry pick dates. It's called moving the goalpost.
No, you disingenuous twit. As I just clearly explained, the OP originally planted the goalpost by using the phrase "today's ills". In my original reply, I clearly indicated that I was addressing this specific topic via my use of the word "modern." You are the only one who is attempting to move the goalpost here.
Sure. I've also heard of "Israel", that thing that popped up after the Holocaust that much of the left wants to constantly demonize and insist that we not support in in any way. I also vaguely recall something about my country fighting against the country that perpetrated the Holocaust.
I also remember the killing fields in Cambodia, the horrific oppression in Tibet, Rwanda (bonus points for the first one to blame this entirely on whitey), the Armenian genocide, etc. Some of these things happened pretty recently, whereas there are very few people still alive today who actively participated in the Holocaust.
The OP said "today's ills". The Holocaust is many things, but it is not "today's ills" by any reasonable definition of the term. This isn't about exonerating our past or current crimes; it's about pointing out this ludicrous, self-destructive streak on the left that unironically asserts that white/western/American self-flagellation is a panacea for the world's ills.
You know what happens when white men really become angry? Everybody else ends up in a mass grave, that's what happens.
Cambodia, Tibet, Rwanda, Turkey, Saddam-era Iraq, etc.
You want to argue Hitler trumps stuff like that, fine, but that requires admitting (rightly or wrongly) that the Jews have suffered the most and it also implies that they are non-white.
This might come back to bite you in the ass if you ever want to argue that some disputed cases of land theft in the immediate aftermath of that persecution were the worst atrocities ever committed and our current support of Israel is therefore entirely unjustified.
Except those are mostly what are known as "lies", not facts. The worst cases of modern oppression and extermination have certainly not been committed by 'white' people, particularly if we further limit it to those white peoples that are traditionally considered to make up 'the West' (and thus exclude the attempted ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, which America and Western Europe opposed.) And you are free to look up the statistics on rape and molestation yourself; the causative agents are more complicated than either side wants to admit, but using a simple and naive survey of the facts the racist-tinged radical right of today usually comes off looking a lot better than the 'reverse'-racist radical left.
And it doesn't help your cause that gay white men (including but certainly not limited to aberrant right-wingers like Milo) are being removed from their former place of victimhood. I'm not at all sure what the radical left hopes to accomplish by intentionally ejecting millions of people from their base.
The really sad part is, you guys could've easily taken the wind out of the sails of the alt-right by simply being rational and favoring free speech, but instead you've chosen to double-down on that reactionary white-bashing that, while kinda cute and perhaps even thought-provoking in the 1990s, comes off as rather delusional and self-destructive in 2016. You've given people like Milo the high ground, and it's going to take you at least half a generation to get it back.
It may be sad but it is by now obvious that brand name means absolutely everything when it comes to social media; the technical specifics of the platform are a fairly minor side concern.
And this may be even sadder, but when it comes to social media brand names that have an association with free speech 4chan is still one of the biggest names in town. I can entirely appreciate why Milo would want to buy it.
sad that so called social media as they expand try to restrict speech to what is acceptable in a drawing room of bourgeois white women, and internet has to depend on a self described faggot troll to consciously create a truly free speech haven.
Whatever the larger implications are for the state of free speech on the internet, I think that a "self-described faggot troll" is pretty much what one would expect from a would-be savior of 4chan.
An x86-based Pi won't be any easier than an ARM based Pi because it won't have the full BIOS, PCI bus, keyboard controller, A20 gate control, southbridge, northbridge etc that the x86 Linux kernel de-facto targets.
Those technologies should be exiting patent alongside the x86 processors themselves. It's a pity that we won't have a SoC exit patent anytime soon (unless there's something I'm not aware of), but it should still be possible to produce a very cheap board that's capable of running arbitrary Linux distros (and also a few non-Linux OSes) basically right out of the box.
That baggage existed a few years ago, but unless someone managed to somehow get an extension on some key patents (I'm fuzzy on how that works) we should fast be approaching the point where the fundamental technology are royalty-free. It's true that the SoCs will still be patent-encumbered but the 'support chips' of 20-30 years ago should also be exiting patent status. Trademark issues are easily bypassed, though they can sometimes make the marketing a little trickier.
I'm not sure if you've noticed, but Nate Silver stopped laying golden eggs months ago. It's more than just black swans; he's been spectacularly slow to acknowledge the limitations of his field and of his own personal assumptions.
You can get low end ARM parts for less than a Euro.
But how indicative is this of the way things must be? The 386 is over 30 years old. 686 procs are 20 years old. All we need is one company who can envision a market segment for low cost x86 (something like Raspberry Pi x86?) so that someone will put in the legwork required to develop a royalty-free or low-royalty product.
I guess it's fitting that he doesn't realize patting someone on the head is a condescending gesture.
There, there. You know you're special, right? That's all that matters.
Yeah, that's precisely what I mean. Saying that gotos are inherently dangerous is fine as a loose rule of thumb, but if you're willing to make your function more fragile or less clear in a slavish, automatic deference to that rule of thumb...
If you would care to read a bit more carefully, you would see that I never said that ifs and gotos were the same thing.
People often describe goto as "unconditional jump" but that's a pretty misleading descriptor. It obviously can be used in a very specific and conditional manner; it's just that it can easily penetrate or break out of other flow control mechanisms in arbitrary ways. Sometimes that results in clearer code, sometimes not. It's never my first instinct, and like I said I haven't used it all that often.
I'm usually pro- splitting things into smaller functions but having multiple exits are not going to make your code safer or easier to read vs. a goto. If moving it into another function isn't serving any another purpose then you're probably just making your code harder to follow. It's not about using gotos on a regular basis; it's about avoiding the cargo cult mentality that gotos inherently cause problems.
And what is this whimpyness about a bit of clear language? PC does not get engineering done. Pretending mistakes are not serious kills engineering.
Well I don't know, some people really like to pass the buck instead of admitting that their failures or the failures of their peers have screwed over hundreds of millions of people.
And as for PC language, hell, I've even seen people whine that you're "stalking" them if you mention that you're going to double-check their claims.
I tend to think rules like "Don't use GOTO" are a good indicator of someone's critical thinking ability. If they make a strong effort to avoid it, that's fine. If they stand there and lecture me that I should be using some convoluted crap instead of a simple, intelligently labeled GOTO to escape from some tangled mess of ifs and loops (not infrequently a mess that was originally created by the speaker) then they may well be very analytical and capable people, but you can't ever trust them to come up with something original or to spot a truly bad idea when they're in a group environment.
And then there's another of people, whose eyes glaze over completely when you try to say "Look, every single If-then-else has an implicit GOTO. This bit right here is fundamentally a conditional jump as well, but it doesn't look good to structure it using only Ifs because..." These conversations invariably end with them wandering away mute (if they're peers) or "don't use GOTO. It's against best practices" if they're supervisors.
I doubt I've used it a dozen times in my life, but I've received grief over almost every single time.
I'm not pro-Trump but I really think this black and white thinking is dangerous. Sure, most fascists are voting for Trump, except for the ones who are "throwing away their vote" on a third party. And most of the Communists are voting for Hillary, except for the ones who are "throwing away their vote" on a third party. Neither block is all that big a concern right now.
I very briefly considered going pro-Trump under a few lines of reasoning, one of them being that he might burn down the right and let something else grow in its ashes, preferably by further splitting the religious conservatives away from the rest. (I now tend to believe that a Trump loss is more likely to accomplish this than a Trump victory.) A lot of people are pro-Trump for fiscal reasons (which I do think is pretty misguided.) A lot of people are pro-Trump for immigration security reasons, which... is painful to say but as stupid as his shit is, once it gets toned down and made legal by his advisors (his first suggestion for a problem is usually illegal) it becomes less stupid than Hillary's.
On a wide variety of topics, the mainstream left is no longer interested in pursuing a reasonable pro-freedom (genuine freedom, not freedom fries jingoistic crap) agenda. Bruce Perens, a reasonable enough guy in most respects, appears to be a prototypical example--he refuses to concede that there should be any ideological test for new prospective citizens whatsoever. You can be openly anti-free speech, anti-freedom of religion, pro-dictatorship, pro-summary justice, pro-'America should be given back to the British', pro-murder (as long as you don't claim to be interested in doing it yourself), whatever, but according to Perens and millions like him we must not contemplate being at all selective in whom we invite in to live here. You can come live here under the protection of our constitution, even if want to see that constitution burn.
With a lot of people, this particular issue first appears to be confusion with rights granted to birthright citizens (of course we can't kick people out of the country they were born in), or a general ignorance of how other countries do things (virtually no one has open borders, and you can't even visit countries like the UK at all if you're famous for having horrible political views), but even after a long discussion I've never seen anyone reconsider their initial stance on this issue.
The left is defining themselves as being anti-right, instead being of pro-liberty and pro-equality... which is horrifying. More horrifying than Trump wanting to ban all travel from certain countries (which is still pretty dumb, of course. And also unlawful back when he was saying on the basis of religion instead of country.) It's not terrifying because I live in mortal fear of terrorist attacks, but because it may lead to more and more people becoming disillusioned with the left's going dogmatism.
“If this is joking around, I’m no longer amused," Cenk Uygur, creator and host of The Young Turks, said on the program. "This is exactly how fascism starts.”
That's not how fascism starts. That's just some low level bully stuff. Arrest him for facilitation or petty theft or something, if indeed it is a crime to order someone to take away someone's coat, then he can get 5 days in prison for misdemeaor whatever, some great fun for the media and then we move on. If it's not a crime, then don't arrest him. Being a dick who says dumb shit don't lead to fascism. If Howard Stern were elected, it wouldn't lead to fascism.
It's the best that can be hoped for. I'm shocked they cared at all. People who're that worried shouldn't be using exit nodes at all without a post-Tor VPN hop. Costs perhaps $3 per month, payable by gift cards. Bypasses this issue entirely and also puts a much needed layer between you and the exit node.
Half of the people who're paranoid about this sort of thing don't even bother to use Whonix, which (with a snapshot on VB, or after they fix it to be a proper DispVM on Qubes) doesn't force you have to micromanage anything at all for the best* possible tracking protection between sessions. The easiest to use option is also not uncommonly the most secure, but some people just have to be unreasonably fancy about everything.
* Ignoring traffic analysis, which is a very... specific vector and on a low latency system will always be losing battle anyway.
Like I said, I'll be devoting something on the order of 5 min/day to this, perhaps 10. You'd have to write on the same complexity level of gweihir, and include similarly glaring errors, for me to be able to scan through all your posts that quickly.
(I tried to fit in an attribution but there weren't enough characters left)
An astute observation.
I would've done a duckroll (funnier IMO), but it's much less widely known.
I think that the missing piece here is paternalistic conservatism--this variety is very weak in America. As delusional and hypocritical as they can be regarding "big government", they do ultimately have a vision that's rooted in individualism. It's a sickly form of individualism, but it's fundamentally rather different from that aristocratic, pragmatic, paternalistic conservatism found in much of the rest of the world. The religious component is important key here. People in Russia might be fairly religious, sure, but how many of them believe they are living in the end times and at any minute the Antichrist is going to pop up and try to implant a ID chip in their hands as part of his plan for world domination? As I recall, 20-30% Americans believe something like that. Discriminating against gays and Muslims is one thing; actually behaving in an overtly dictatorial manner is quite another. America is probably the most patriotic country on Earth and that patriotism is almost entirely rooted in the idea of freedom. The moment they or their immediate family feel violated, I think there will be pushback.
Also, It doesn't receive a lot of attention, but despite years of gradual erosion of states' rights (largely because people keep trying to use that as an excuse for institutionalized bigotry) we are still fifty different states with fifty different governments and completely separate police forces.
Plus, it must be repeated: Trump is ultimately empty and uncaring and unintelligent, and his party does NOT like him. You can point at his quotes all day long; whence comes the follow through? How does this page in the history book read that ends with him actually having the drive and daring to risk imprisonment or assassination by trying to do dictator stuff?