Ben Taylor

Software Engineer, Trade Unionist, Gamer, Geek, Dad. Lives in Devon

Public Key

npub1cfsyjejpdzc8tam45nnmuk5gdfnwuqtzc8z6x768adhhcxund0kqx89shx

NIP-05 Address

VoxDei_at_qoto.org@mostr.pub

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsvyczfveqk3vr47a66fea7t2yx5ehwq93vr3dr0dr7kmmurwfkhmqppamhxue69uhk6mmnw3ezuur4vg0xl7vn

Publishing to

mostr.pub

Author Public Key

npub1cfsyjejpdzc8tam45nnmuk5gdfnwuqtzc8z6x768adhhcxund0kqx89shx

Show more details

Last Notes

2024-09-01 07:54:18

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 I watched this episode on Netflix (for the first time in years) three days ago, not realising, and thought it was a weird coincidence!

2024-08-26 10:27:32

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 Badum-ting!

2024-08-10 12:30:23

"Gold medals are actually mostly silver with a gold coating. Bronze medals are usually a mix of copper, zinc and tin."
So, um... they're made of bronze then?
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/article/2024/aug/10/nyjah-huston-skateboard-degraded-bronze-medal-paris-2024-olympics
#Olympics #Paris2024 #guardian

2024-05-23 18:37:38

- reply

@npub1hyk…3p33 But but but AI! Copilot! It's the Future of Everything! AI AI AI AI Buy our stuff pleeeeeeease!!!

2024-03-24 08:04:27

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 You haven't been short tempered with me that I recall, but just to say sorry you've had all that and glad you're (from the sound of it) on the right track now

2024-03-09 19:39:20

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 My favourite was when the European Space Agency rolled their own security questions on a new satellite data portal a while back. The questions were a mix of changeable answers ("When did you last water your plants?") and yes/no answers. The minimum field length was three characters.

2024-03-08 18:51:01

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 Does that mean there are two carbon atoms in there? C2(Head)(Hand)2(Foot)2?

2024-01-28 19:37:19

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 No we can't. RAAAARGH!

2024-01-16 01:18:18

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 Um… I mean I’ll read it, but work and kids to sort out in the morning, so I doubt I’ll have time to pick up the discussion then. All honesty this probably already went on longer than I wanted, I am genuinely interested in your point and I may reply later on, but I’ll be up front and say I may not. Completely understand if you don’t want to spend time explaining to me in those circumstances. 🙂

2024-01-16 01:15:23

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 OK, sorry, I guess I’m just used to people (including me) just explaining their point to me, asked or not. That’s the internet for you! I’m interested, if you would like to explain your point to me then yes please, but I’m going to bed now so I’ll be leaving the discussion here anyway. But thank you. 🙂

2024-01-15 23:22:00

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 As I say, apologies - I thought I understood your point. I’m still not sure I do, I’m sorry - taking the UK as an example again (my knowledge elsewhere is very limited, though entirely possible I’m also wrong about the UK), handguns are banned outside gun clubs, rifles, shotguns or certain air rifles (and cannons, slightly strangely) require either a firearms or shotgun certificate to own I believe, but once you’ve got that open and concealed carry are both legal (though you’ll get treated like a live rattlesnake if you carry a shotgun around the supermarket, I imagine). Knives that are classed as “offensive weapons” are banned in public places. If anything the knife has stricter treatment?

2024-01-15 23:02:50

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 OK, then I think I’m misunderstanding what you were saying. The cartoon you posted seemed to be saying that gun violence was the only kind for which we blamed the weapon, for all other kinds we blamed the person behind it. I had read your words as giving the same message.
I was disagreeing with that and saying that while “blame” per se lies with the human in every case (obviously, it cannot be the “fault” of an inanimate object that something happened), we can and do address both the human causes and the weapon causes in all cases to try and reduce a given type of violence.
But like I say, I think I misunderstood your point, so my apologies.

2024-01-15 22:43:06

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 But that was my point? Nobody's saying (well, I'm not) that gun violence is the only type that can be addressed through the legal system and all the others are just down to the perpetrator. For gun violence, knife violence, whatever, if there's a weapon involved you need both the weapon and the wielder. To address it you can/should always address both sides of that fact, surely?
And we do. I've never seen anyone say that you should address gun violence solely through gun laws, and I've never seen anyone say that you should treat knife violence solely as a problem with violent people.

2024-01-15 22:09:21

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 We don't though? We (UK) also have laws about possession of knives that are primarily weapons (eg locking blades or "zombie" knives, and possession of offensive weapons
https://www.leics.police.uk/police-forces/leicestershire-police/areas/leicestershire-force-content/c/campaigns/2019/knife-crime/i-carry-a-knife-what-do-i-need-to-know/#:~:text=You%20can%20carry%20a%20knife,illegal%20to%20carry%20in%20public.

2024-01-11 21:28:36

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 Yeah, your kneecaps. ;-)

2024-01-11 21:25:03

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 Dunno about communism with extra steps. Doesn't sound very communist. Isn't it the definition of a protection racket, pretty much? Though I guess with a protection racket you pick a larger number of people who haven't paid up. Still.

2024-01-08 22:36:54

Just wow. Our treatment of refugees is so inhumane that Medecins Sans Frontieres (better known for providing medical care in refugee camps near war zones) has felt compelled to spend resources to set up shop in Essex. What a shameful indictment of the UK's inhumanity towards people in need.
#refugees #migration #ukpolitics #uk #msf #MedecinsSansFrontieres
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/08/medecins-sans-frontieres-treating-refugees-home-office?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

2023-10-25 17:54:00

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 I suspect it's just coincidence. We're genetically programmed to find at least human babies cute (um, once they've stopped looking like gremlins, I guess), and I wouldn't be surprised if as an evolutionary hold-over from when we were all the things before humans that evolution finds it much easier to specify "find anything that looks young cute" over being species-specific for humanity.

2023-10-22 00:12:47

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1fc8…2ur4 I don't claim to know a lot about the distinction, so it's entirely possible I'm wrong, but my belief was always that armed police in the UK had carbines. I'm reasonably sure they do not fire on full auto regardless. It's possible specialist counter-terrorism police have different armaments.
Police in the UK are not routinely armed with more than tasers, mind. It's only specialist armed response officers who have guns. Where I live in Devon I seem to remember hearing that there are only three armed response units to cover the entire county overnight, which is about 70 miles N-S, about 55 E-W, largely rural but with at least three population centres in excess of 50,000 people. Though again I may be misinformed.

2023-10-09 15:08:27

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 If you've got any time for sci-fi, try reading Blindsight by Peter Watts. Some very interesting exploration of the questions of consciousness, though I think he's more or less come to the opposite conclusion to you!

2023-09-22 17:30:14

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 Interacted with you briefly recently but wasn't offended in any way. Apologies in turn if I came across as lecturing, I just... don't get the gun thing.
Sorry to hear you've had a rough time recently. Genuine best wishes, I hope you can get through without too much scarring.

2023-09-17 07:24:24

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1xq8…9xvs You two as gun lovers think open carry is reassuring. I as a person who doesn't interact with them much find someone carrying a gun intimidating. If I ask you why you are carrying one, you will say "For protection", or similar, but that reassurance from someone I don't know means nothing. Are you drunk? Are you a drug dealer? Are you psychotic? If I disagree with you? If I cut you off in the car? If I spill your beer or trip over your foot or turn out to think Trump is the antichrist? Safer simply not to interact with you, so I won't unless I have to.

2023-09-17 07:14:45

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 A license requiring you know what you're doing and know how to be responsible in no way infringes on the right to bear arms.

2023-09-17 07:14:45

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 A license requiring you know what you're doing and know how to be responsible in no way infringes on the right to bear arms.

2023-09-16 09:42:30

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 Firstly, this is from last year, it's not new. Secondly, it's based on some bizarre legal theory, creating a legal principle that did not previously exist and does not make sense: specifically, that the state can pass gun control laws only if there is are "historical roots" for the law in question. So it's (again) the court making up the law it wants, rather than the law it's got.
Thirdly though, and most importantly, why is this a good thing? You're a gun nut, I get it, and that's fine - you're a responsible gun owner and all that.* But why does the fact that responsible owners are responsible mean that it's a good thing for everyone to be given a gun for the asking, even if there is no reason to believe they know what they're doing or will be responsible? We don't give cars to people who haven't demonstrated they can drive safely, for the good and sufficient reason that in incompetent hands they're lethal, and cars aren't even designed to be lethal weapons.
*Personally, I don't get why you would have a need to carry a gun in public, and open carry in particular is physically intimidating to others in the same way that walking around with a large and aggressive dog is. So I must say I think it's particularly anti-social. But that's not a safety issue, merely a courtesy one.

2023-08-14 22:47:28

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 Doesn't look like it, sadly. Most of the Republican base are too far gone in the Fox News reality where black is white and none of this is happening.
Rupert Murdoch has an awful lot to answer for, but at this point I doubt he could stop it if he wanted to. Even if Fox turned round and started telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, three quarters of Trump's base would just assume they'd been nobbled by the Deep State and double down. Deprogramming people once they've bought into a conspiracy is a bitch.

2023-08-14 21:50:25

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 Unfortunately, being found guilty, even imprisoned, does not in fact bar him from office.
The only hope of that lies in the 14th Amendment, section 3:
"No person shall... hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, ... who, having previously taken an oath, ... as an officer of the United States, ... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same"
I understand there are legal moves on to disqualify him on exactly these grounds, but it'll take a while and will presumably end up with the less-than-impartial Supreme Court.

2023-08-07 20:09:44

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 I'm not sure that it is acceptable and sweet to tell a stranger (at least a woman) that they have lovely eyes. Some will take it as a compliment, sure. Some (quite a lot, I suspect) will think you're being creepy. I suspect "You have lovely breasts" is actually the same, just that the proportion who will take it as a compliment vs. the proportion who will think you're being creepy is different.

2023-08-06 08:43:13

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1ukc…40jn But a) it's not just wages, it's also safety and other conditions and b) it's easy to establish what your competitors' wages are. No collusion is required, it's just supply and demand.
Also c) we aren't talking about entities with equal power. An individual worker generally has essentially no power over their employer to force them to negotiate things in good faith, but must accept what they are given. Only in negotiating collectively does that change, and even then it's still imbalanced, because only strikes give a truly effective lever, and those are a nuclear option.

2023-08-06 00:07:53

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1ukc…40jn But from the workers' point of view, whether the company is gouging its customers by price fixing is irrelevant to how it treats its staff. If the company is telling its workers to work in ways that are unsafe, or it is failing to reward them adequately for their work, why shouldn't they band together to stop it?
You are conflating collective action by people with collective action by companies. The latter is used to extract wealth from customers (people) and give it to legal entities that are not people (companies). The former is the opposite. Since we want wealth in society to sit with people, where it can do some good for them, not in a company's bank account (or their shareholders'), it is reasonable to permit one and forbid the other.
Collective action by workers created weekends, paid holidays, paid maternity care, safety standards for workers and a variety of other benefits. Without it there is nothing to counterbalance the power imbalance between a company and its workers. Companies have huge resources, workers do not, they have to have means for their own protection.

2023-08-05 20:56:00

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1ukc…40jn All strikes are is people refusing to work. If you say "No matter what you do to your employees, those employees are obliged to either accept it or resign (and then be unable to feed their families)" then what you have is slavery.
Incidentally, if you're going to invoke contract enforcement to counter that, when you look into it employment contract law in the UK is utterly toothless. Other than setting wages, employment contracts here are legally barely worth the paper they're written on.

2023-07-19 16:17:57

- reply

@npub16mz…uzxf What happens if someone actually gives you money in response to this? Do you have to give it back? 😄

2023-07-05 14:41:16

@npub1kk8…tfu3 @npub1wlr…w209 You're famous. 😂
https://www.pcgamer.com/yet-another-reason-to-ditch-musks-twitter-you-can-play-a-crowdsourced-dungeons-and-dragons-campaign-over-on-mastodon/

2023-05-11 17:46:41

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 OK, well, maybe it's the format I have a problem with then. We don't really do that in the UK, we have TV debates (some), we have one-on-one interviews, but we don't really have a here-say-what-you-want-for-an-hour thing. We have party political broadcasts, but they're clearly labelled as such and don't have a moderator, it's just a canned broadcast that the party prepares but paid for by the state (for parties that have seats in Parliament already).
If a candidate wants to speak somewhere then of course they can do so, but they aren't generally carried live for an hour, you just get a couple of highlights on the news. And the TV channel would probably be obliged to present the opposing view or be subject to sanction by the regulator - there is an obligation for broadcasts to be politically balanced here that doesn't exist in the US.
I guess this comes back to the original point then? If all it was supposed to be was a Trump rally (and I'm not really seeing the difference between your description of a "town hall" and a political rally? Other than maybe the audience can ask more questions?), then CNN is responsible for their own choice to carry it. People who don't like Trump rallies are likely to be turned off by that being carried uncritically? I accept the point about if it's for the Republican primary then a Republican audience might be normal, but at the same time you're broadcasting it to everyone, Republican or not. Why is there an obligation on CNN or any network to carry that? Wait for the actual presidential race and then don't softball him (or any candidate)?

2023-05-11 17:36:36

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 I'm not limiting my opinion to Trump! If you want to be elected to the highest offices you need to face the hardest questions, Biden absolutely needs to be challenged as well!

2023-05-11 17:34:05

- reply

@npub1q8n…kct8 @npub1kpw…xzz4 I'm... not really sure I can bring myself to listen to an hour of Trump ranting. I don't even get a vote. Life's too short, and all that. I accept this limits the value of my opinion on the thing that I don't want to listen to. 🙂

2023-05-11 17:32:51

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 As I understand it CNN selected the audience to be New Hampshire registered Republican voters and non-aligned voters planning to vote in the Republican primary. So it's not that the democrats didn't bother coming, they weren't invited. Probably to avoid a punch-up in the audience.
Maybe I don't understand the town-hall format. But if you know the candidate is going to say things that are not merely untrue in your opinion but have been found to be untrue in court multiple times, I don't think it's right to let them do that again without challenge, whatever the format.

2023-05-11 17:29:11

- reply

@npub1q8n…kct8 @npub1kpw…xzz4 Well, fair enough, like I say I haven't seen it (I don't even live in the States). I read a summary in the Guardian, and nobody's going to call them neutral on Trump. Their claim was that Collins lost control and was steamrollered by Trump, and even if she tried she was unable to do anything. If that's untrue then what I said may not apply, though remains true in general terms. 🙂

2023-05-11 17:22:45

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 While I agree that Trump is as deserving of a platform as any other political candidate (and I haven't watched the CNN thing, only read a summary, so I could be wrong), from what I hear the issue is less that Trump had a platform and more that he was given a free ride. From the sound of things:
1. Trump was allowed to tell lie after lie after lie and was not called out on any of them. CNN wasn't able to even begin to either challenge his lies or provide fact checking to the viewers. It was entirely predictable and predicted that he would do this, it's not like it was a surprise to them, they should have been ready.
2. The audience was entirely sympathetic to him. There was nobody to ask him hard questions and they were all ready to lap up his lies.
Trump is as deserving of a platform as any significant candidate for major political office. But in giving him (or any other candidate) that platform it is incumbent on the organisation doing it to challenge the candidate, to not simply permit them to say whatever they want whether it's true or not and to make sure that they are asked the questions that they don't want to answer.
A media organisation that does not do these things is not a news or current affairs outlet, it is a propaganda outfit. I wouldn't watch Fox or OAN to get my news about Trump and American politics, and if this is how CNN behaves towards him now I wouldn't watch them either.

2023-03-29 10:55:46

- reply

#[0] I agree. I absolutely agree. But they don't.
I think we've reached the point where we're arguing semantics now. I think we would both say "You shouldn't block people just for disagreeing with you" and "You can block people because you find what they say offensive" and "Some things it's possible to disagree on without giving offence, and some things it isn't". :-)

2023-03-29 10:53:11

- reply

#[0] I think that's ascribing way more intention to this than exists. I don't think more motive is required than "I don't want to talk to you and I don't want you to talk to me". It's perfectly possible to disagree with me and challenge my views within my own definition of politeness, if people want to do that then they're welcome - we're doing it now. ;-)
But there are things I just don't want to hear about, and people I don't want to hear from. Yes, that results in an element of the "filter bubble" that social media is so notorious for, but I don't feel like I need to fill my timeline with stuff I don't want to hear about just to avoid that.

2023-03-29 10:49:23

- reply

#[0] Yeah, you've hit the nail on the head exactly. It's subjective. ;-)
I do a number of things that my mother-in-law considers rude and I don't (for example, using the word "guys" to refer to a group of people who aren't all male, or using my fork as a scoop rather than a spearing implement when faced with peas or similar). Occasionally she tells me off for them, usually by proxy by telling my son off for them. I think this is completely unreasonable. Neither of us is being "rude" by our own tenets, both of us probably wish we could block the other, at least sometimes. 😂

2023-03-29 10:46:45

- reply

#[0] Why would I not care? At that point I don't know what they're doing in response to something I've said. They might be mocking me, they might be doxxing me, they might be inciting violence. All of these things are unlikely, but I don't owe them anything, and they're not going to change because of a random post of mine.
I don't really see the point in just muting, TBH, in most cases, at least. If I don't want to interact with you then that is a two way street, for me.

2023-03-29 10:44:05

- reply

#[0] Oh yeah, I agree, racism is always impolite. To me, and to the race they disrespected. But my point is that's just an example - *any* view could be looked at that way by someone. Someone could decide one of my opinions is rude and block me for it, even though I wasn't trying to be offensive.
My understanding of your original post was that you were saying people shouldn't block people for saying things they disagree with politely. I'm saying you shouldn't judge people to be impolite by your own standards, but rather by whether the offence was deliberate. But then if you do that then there's nothing wrong with saying "You might be being 'polite' by your own standards, but I still don't want to talk to you or hear from you" and blocking them.

2023-03-29 10:33:03

- reply

#[0] I don't know about that. You can't say something racist that I would consider polite, but it's perfectly possible for them to do it while not being deliberately offensive, it's just how they are. Doesn't mean I want to see it.
You can say that about anything - antivaxxers, for instance, if I've lost someone to Covid (and I have lost family members, though only fairly distant family) then I might consider that to be rude/upsetting, where again they weren't trying to be in-your-face about it or anything.
As for block vs. silence... isn't that just personal preference? I may be misunderstanding, but the effect on me is the same - I don't see their stuff. It's just down to whether I'm willing for them to see mine. It's vanishing unlikely they would, but I don't see why they should anyway, I just don't want to interact with them on any subject other than a polite and serious discussion as to how they became like they are and how it could be changed.

2023-03-29 10:17:35

- reply

#[0] Really? I've seen a small number of racists/homophobes/fascists/antivaxxers go by on the global timeline. They were being "polite" by their own standards, but they were also being racist/homophobic/whatever. I don't need that in my life, I looked at their timelines to check I wasn't misunderstanding where they were coming from and then I blocked them. I don't feel like I'm a bad person for doing so.