[-] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 2 points 44 minutes ago

OP is confusing "prosecution" with "persecution", thus making this whole thread impenetrable

[-] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 4 points 45 minutes ago

They mean "persecution"

[-] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world -4 points 21 hours ago

With the small caveat that you are not a judge, either appointed or elected.

[-] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world -4 points 22 hours ago

Brought to justice? Is this the kind of "justice" you advocate for every transgression or are you making an exception for this one? Who decides what the penalties are? You? What if some other evil CEO committed some other nebulous "crime" but only a bit less serious, what would he deserve? Just a beating in the street? An hour in your personal torture dungeon?

In a civilized society we have institutions that dispense justice. They operate on the principle that a law must be broken first. If you don't like the law, then you first need to get the law changed. You don't get to decide unilaterally who gets punished how much and for what.

[-] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world -4 points 1 day ago

Lives are more important than shareholder value and no feduciary lawsuit would ever rule otherwise.

Indeed. That's why murder is illegal, not to mention a moral abomination. I didn't read the rest of your comment.

[-] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world -4 points 1 day ago

He was maximizing value for the shareholders of his company. That's what happens in capitalism.

If you're going to analyze the moral balance sheet of every private company then you're going to need to be more consistent. Any major oil company will surely account for far more damage to people (not to mention other creatures) than this health insurer. Do all their CEOs deserve extrajudicial capital punishment too?

What about you personally? What are the wider effects of your personal choices of diet, for example, or mobility? Not great, I'd guess. Perhaps you don't merit a bullet, but maybe some prison time is warranted?

Yes. He was a cog, I am one and so are you.

[-] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

It really is a conundrum. Group festivities seem almost designed to make the people on the margins of society feel worse about themselves. And yet try to imagine a society without such events. It would be even worse (and of course no such society has never existed). This whole problem is exacerbated so much by the fractured nature of modern urban life. In the past it was not even possible to be alone at Christmas, because nobody much was ever alone.

Anyway, as something of a marginal type myself, I agree with suggestions others have made. If you try hard enough, you really can see through the myth of social "success" and "failure". At that point, festive dates will begin to seem like what they are: just dates. As for "getting company", this one's pretty easy. Join some social group with regular events, and make it a fixture in your diary. You'll meet new people and eventually things will move on from there. But be patient! All human relations are about the hours invested. So if you haven't taken this first step already, there's no time to lose. Make it your new year's resolution.

[-] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

I second every word of this. Great advice, beautifully articulated.

[-] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 26 points 2 days ago

Completely unreadable without the paragraph breaks! But probably a great argument.

5

Banks, email providers, booking sites, e-commerce, basically anything where money is involved, it's always the same experience. If you use the Android or iOS app, you stayed signed in indefinitely. If you use a web browser, you get signed out and asked to re-authenticate constantly - and often you have to do it painfully using a 2FA factor.

For either of my banks, if I use their crappy Android app all I have to do is input a short PIN to get access. But in Firefox I also get signed out after about 10 minutes without interaction and have to enter full credentials again to get back in - and, naturally, they conceal the user ID field from the login manager to be extra annoying.

For a couple of other services (also involving money) it's 2FA all the way. Literally no means of staying signed in on a desktop browser more than a single session - presumably defined as 30 minutes or whatever. Haven't tried their own crappy mobile apps but I doubt very much it is such a bad experience.

Who else is being driven crazy by this? How is there any technical justification for this discrimination? Browsers store login tokens just like blackbox spyware on Android-iOS, there is nothing to stop you staying signed in indefinitely. The standard justification seems to be that web browsers are less secure than mobile apps - is there any merit at all to this argument?

Or is all this just a blatant scam to push people to install privacy-destroying spyware apps on privacy-destroying spyware OSs, thus helping to further undermine the most privacy-respecting software platform we have: the web.

If so, could a legal challenge be mounted using the latest EU rules? Maybe it's time for Open Web Advocacy to get on the case.

Thoughts appreciated.

view more: next ›

JubilantJaguar

joined 2 years ago