But Light is like a generic incarnation of god but also knowledge, revelation etc., it’s way more absolute than peace or even love. I think Light does make sense from their perspective, and in the catholic symbolism it is identified basically with all positive stuff.

You had a bunch of other references that make sense eh, I am not familiar with them, so I respect that people might have different perceptions.

Uh?

I know nothing about anime, but I guess it is not that bad? Luce is straight up “light” in Italian, and Lucifer just means “the one who brings light” because it’s the Angel’s name, before the fall according to the fairytale. So from their POV it should all make sense.

For browser, there is a webapp that can be selfhosted. See here https://github.com/logseq/logseq/blob/master/docs/docker-web-app-guide.md

I think you need chromium browsers due to the API they use, but it should work.

Many encryption algorithms rely on the assumption that the factorizations of numbers in prime numbers has an exponential cost and not a polynomial cost (I.e. is a NP problem and not P, and we don’t know if P != NP although many would bet on it). Whether there are infinite prime numbers or not is really irrelevant in the context you are mentioning, because encryption relies on factorizing finite numbers of relatively fixed sizes.

The problem is that for big numbers like n=p*q (where p and q are both prime) it’s expensive to recover p and q given n.

Note that actually more modern ciphers don’t rely on this (like elliptic curve crypto).

Every point can be supported with an analogy bad enough

Yep, my partner gave one for my birthday, it’s basically plug-and-play. It can automatically harvest credentials, spoof captive portals, etc. I bet that in most places nobody would question something like this hanging on the ceiling indeed.

Just FYI https://shop.hak5.org/products/wifi-pineapple. There are ready-made devices that can do basically what you are describing!

Encrypted DNS doesn’t solve everything. Handshake for TLS sessions is still in clear, you can usually see the SNI, and since we are talking about Wireless, usually this data is available to anybody who is in the vicinity, not just the network owner. This already means that you can see what sites someone is visiting, more or less. TLS 1.3 can mitigate some of this (for those who implement ESNI, but you don’t know that beforehand). Also TLS works until the user is not accepting invalid certificates prompts (HSTS doesn’t work for everything) and there are still tons of HTTP-based redirect (check mailing newsletters and see how many first send you to an HTTP site, for example) that can be used for MiTM attacks.

A VPN moves the trust to a single provider that you can choose, which is much better than trusting every single WiFi network you can attach to and the people connected to it, I would say.

Also if you pay for the VPN (I pay Proton), it’s not true that the company business is based on user data, they are based on subscriptions.

That app doesn’t work as it needs some play API which I guess is not implemented in microG. I am guessing not all of them are passed though.

My FP3 on /e/OS (based on lineage) has native recording. The phone passes safetynet check, i believe due to microG. However, some apps consider the bootloader unlocked so YMMV.

I am aware, and I am also aware that people are free to think what they want for themselves and I am nobody to judge them. You might think it’s ridiculous, but theirs is the only life affected by this, so they are well within their rights to have all the opinions they have on their life.

Not being aware of any disability is true, but their statement is relative to what they are aware of, not a scientific statement (since it’s a personal opinion), and as I said, you can also approximate to the blanket statement rather than mentioning 100 conditions.

I agree it might be insensitive to bring it up, but neither me nor the person you answered to brought it up, we merely answered to a comment that mentioned this expression.

I really disagree with your reasoning. I think that someone might simply consider any disability a reason not to live, and you are nobody to say that they missed the nuance of different disabilities, or that it’s ridiculous to think you’d rather die than being hard of hearing (which is what I think you implied). I disagree with the blanket statement, but I think your arguments are invalid both from the theoretical standpoint than from the practical one (when x becomes a list of 100 items you might as well use a blanket statement).

I understand that vision will deteriorate. My question was if using glasses can contribute to the deterioration. If glasses are neutral and don’t harm, then I don’t understand the parent comment.

The way I asked the question was that if using glasses all the time I could - for example - reduce even more certain movements etc. and ultimately cause harm to my vision.

Look, if the problem is the expression, I don’t care really for it. English is not my first language, I have no need to say this to anybody really, and I have no problem expressing my thought in another way.

All I care is the semantic and the underlying principle.

So yeah, I won’t stomp my foot to defend my right to express my thought with that sentence (to be honest, not a fan of policing language this way). I will simply defend my right to express the underlying opinion, in whichever way is acceptable.

I see and agree with both points. I definitely keep such choices to a very tight circle (like I gave instructions to my partner and family in what to do should I end up in certain situations - also called biological testament in Italian).

I also mentioned that indeed I would consider certain disabilities a deal breaker for me not to keep living, definitely not all disabilities. I would actually say that there are things that I want to do in life, and if I can’t - for whatever reason - that would be a reason not to live for me. Whether it’s a disability, a material condition, etc. It’s not really relevant - a disability can simply be a proxy not to be able to do something.

For example, I fought tooth and nail to ensure that my grandma would receive the proper care when she had dementia (which is a disabling condition I would say?). I also took care of her directly, and I would do that again a thousand times. However, should I get a similar condition, I let my family know that I would like to be euthanized, I don’t want to live like that.

Finally, this perspective is really really personal, it is bound to my experiences and my idea to the point that it can’t simply apply to anybody else. I would definitely never go to anybody and say “if I were in your shoes I would rather die”, but even if I thought that, this is a meaningless statement for another person. It’s of course extremely rude to say this, so once again, I am saying it for the sake of a theoretical discussion.

Overall for me this is a matter of free will and agency over your own body, it’s in anthithesis with the religious view that considers your body not yours and suffering a noble thing in itself.

Since you added an edit later on: no replacement makes that statement bigoted. If my own morale or ideas bring me to my own evaluation - that applies only to me - that life in a certain condition wouldn’t be worth living, there is nothing bigoted (at least, inherently).

I wouldn’t want to live so many lives that people live. Like an exploited worker in a poor country, a female in a very religious society etc. Ultimately this is a personal decision on your own life and body, nobody else should have a saying on what I want to do with my life at this fundamental level.

The problem (which becomes being ableist, or racist, or sexist) is when this perspectives becomes an ideology that affects society. You can easily support a society that - say - grants equal opportunities to men and women and at the same time think that you wouldn’t want to live as a woman.

Yeah, I completely disagree.

This for me is a position on my own right to determine my life, including ending it if certain conditions are not met. It is a position that affects and will affect a single person only, the one supporting it.

So in a sense it is something closer to assisted suicide and euthanasia in general. “Any disability would make my life not worth living” is different than saying “any disability makes life not worth living”. It’s a completely subjective issue, that can also change over time, and it’s obvious that there are people who completely disagree and have wonderful meaningful lives worth living while being disabled.

People with disabilities have gotten killed for this

Since this is not what I mean, nor advocate, this is in no way on me. The fact that other people with other perspectives act in a different way is not a reason me for to suppress my opinion. I mean no harm to anybody, I support welfare and public healthcare, I support also accessibility in all the different forms because I believe society should provide all tools and conditions possible to anybody to live their lives in the best possible way.

Also, I personally don’t have such a hard-line, I think for my own personal perspective only certain disabilities would be reasons to determine my life is not worth living anymore, but I can accept that for other people the bar can be in a different place.

Can you explain why? Why can’t I choose not to live in case I’d get disabled (in some cases, I would say)?

As long as you are not advocating that disabled people should be killed, and you respect the personal nature of this position, what is the problem?

What’s wrong with “I’d rather die than be disabled”? To me it looks a legitimate personal moral stance.