There actually is a humane way to make foie gras the birds will naturally eat enough without any human intervention to create a sufficiently large liver (its more expensive but something people are willing to pay for). Then again animals are not people they have fuck all rights and who gave these dickheads the right to say what other people can do. And how is it thw fault of a restaurant thats simply following the laws of supply and demand.

"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion" - Karl Popper

I think the pardox of tolerance as its often used in popular discussion is use to justify to intolerance of any idea that is even a little intolerant(i would argue this is nessasary eg we should not tolerate pedos) where as i take the source material with its included context to mean that we should be intolerant of intolerance in its actions not its utterance.

I juat wich i could log in with my lemmy account to add comments.

I follow thw idea that we should be maximising the function of human freedom. Doing such ironically must restrict some freedoms eg removing your freedom to remove others freedoms. This has interesting implications upon your stance here mainly that whatever inconvenience ie restriction of freedoms your cause must be lesser than expected value of freedoms gained. This is thus my calculus of if the means justify the ends.

However, the issue we are currently facing is not a matter of how free speech is enacted but the simple fact that some people think that other people are not entitled to it. For example all the large social media companies censor people (as is their right as a private company) at the request of the government. Free speach is to protect is from the government and as such they should have no right to request any restriction upon speach of private companies.

I can see that in the future there will be attempts to restricts neuter sue and outlaw federated media by governments of the world. We as federated peoples pose the greatest threat to government restriction of free speach since the advent of the internet itself. I suspect we have already started seeing psyops to build distrust in federated services.

Ps i think ur headline does sound a little extreme and your words are complete purple prose.

No in america u can just pay ur way to freedom only poor people and martyrs do time in the states.

Why cant they get officially approved by google? Is it purely monopoly maintenance? Surly the eu will mark them as gatekeepers?

No nvidia so it aint gonna go mainstream

Piratebay?

We invented multi bit models so we could get more accuracy since neural networks are based off human brains which are 1 bit models themselves. A 2 bit neuron is 4 times as capable as a 1 bit neuron but only double the size and power requirements. This whole thing sounds like bs to me. But then again maybe complexity is more efficient than per unit capability since thats the tradeoff.

Fdroid have they renamed it ive been noticing things crashing a lot and no updates is that why?

Just wait till u find out that √10 = √g = 3 = π = e.

As long as the pedo shit is blocked i dont see why u would want to defederate instead of letting each user block what they want. We need a user level federated blocklist.