Facebook, Twitter Proposing CentOS Hyperscale SIG With Newer Packages + Other Changes

[coder]

replace Twitter with parler in your statement in the last 2 paragraphs.. replace Trump with any of the democrats calling for more riots and protests, calling for their followers to harass anyone they disagree with if they see them in public...

Who called for riots?

Other than that, what's your point? Parler is a private platform, and therefore it would be within their right to delete any posts for any reason.

[coder]

just in case if you did not notice that i wrote you a post and it was instandly deleted by forum admin.

I saw the post and I think it didn't have a place, here.

Would I protect your right to say it somewhere? Absolutely, even though I strongly disagree with it. But this is a private site with its own policies, and we all know that we stray outside those at our own risk.

[coder]

Fact is, though, different genders and races and whatnot being better in one area or another is relatively moot. Aside from the genetic specimens of a person, the extreme outliers that form the basis of stereotypes, the Arnold Schwarzenegger's, Usain Bolt's, and Stephen Hawking's of the world, we're all basically capable of the same things.

The key point I've heard is that any differences in the mean between genders (and presumably other things, like race) are much smaller than the standard deviation. So, that makes it a very poor predictor of individual capabilities. In other words, don't indulge those prejudices because they're not useful (or fair).

Our brains are wired to find and apply patterns, but that doesn't mean we have no conscious say in the matter.

[coder]

But, yeah, the one thing we all agree on is that a line was crossed that forced people to accept that the ravings of upset people were more than the ravings of upset people and that something needs to be done to curtail all the vile and hostility spreading across the internet as well as that there needs to be a way of holding people accountable in the real world for what they say in the digital world.

That wasn't my point. My point was that conspiracy to commit violent or other illegal acts is itself a crime. There's a legal definition of what constitutes "conspiracy", in this case, to avoid infringing on people's constitutional right to make idle and disgruntled remarks. It basically centers around the actions one takes following the remarks. So, it's fundamentally a retrospective definition. In other words, you can't define what's a conspiracy to commit a crime just by what someone says.

This means the social media platforms don't know which posts run afoul of this law, but they now have proof that some did violate laws against conspiracy and incitement. Therefore, they have cause to purge similar content and groups involved in these discussions, because some of it is likely illegal. I am not a lawyer, but that's my understanding of the platforms' legal argument.

That's a separate discussion from whether they should "curtail all the vile and hostility spreading across the internet". This is simply a matter of their own internal policies.

there needs to be a way of holding people accountable in the real world for what they say in the digital world.

Not sure about that. Unless you go the China route of tying people's social media ID to their real identity (which Facebook actually wanted to do, at one point), you can't have that level of accountability. The simpler solution seems to be just trying to prevent the use of your platform for illegal content, which is already required by law.

My biggest fear is that we'll, meaning as a society, will go overboard and bring our future closer to 1984 than towards a peaceful Star Trek episode.

Yeah, unintended consequences are always something to watch out for.

A lot of people said "don't worry about the NSA spying on you, if you're doing nothing wrong", but what do you think a Trump-successor would do with an unlimited ability to spy on his or her political opponents? If Trump held power for another 4 years, I fear we'd have found out.

people will die if they want a new right or an old right back.

I think you underestimate the power of our political system. It's gotten a bit seized up by special interests that have learned how to exploit its weaknesses, but the point of a representative government and a functioning legal system is that it provides a non-violent means to seek change and right injustice. We forget that at our peril.

[coder]

The US people have authoritarian Regime

I'm not going to debate this point-by-point, but that doesn't mean I agree with your claims. I just don't want to distract from a few larger points.

Any Regime who comes by force/violence/war is Authoritarian!!!!

This depends on what you mean by a regime, and even then I'm not sure it exactly fits the textbook definition of authoritarianism. But we can agree that if politicians seize power by illegitimate means, that would be a bad thing. Whether it's the Presidency or Congress, in fact.

but you can not do a election Linke this;
You can Vote (Trump or Biden)The 1% Elite or Grassroot democratic system the 99% people..

If you do a election like this I am Sure Donald Trump and Biden lose
and the people want Grassroot democratic Vote system.

But why Not make a Constitution Who 99% people agree(Grassroot vote) and Not only the 1% Elite?

The first question is whether the Constitution is, in fact, the problem. I would argue it's not, since it gives us a way to improve it. For example, if we want to get rid of the Electoral College. Also, it has a lot of good in it, as well, atop which our laws and legal traditions are built.

The second point of contention is what would be better. It's easy to point out flaws in the current system, but trying to get everyone to agree on what to replace it with, and then trying to avoid the "1% elite" from twisting it to serve their interests even better is nearly an impossible task.

So, to me, it's much better and safer to improve on what we have, than to indulge in fantasies about tearing it down and replacing it with something better. Any observer of modern society and human behavior should quickly foresee what sort of disaster should unfold if we tried to go down that path.

Finally, all this talk about how we should just "tear everything down and start over" causes people to disengage from the political process, which furthers the sense of disenfranchisement and enables the "1% elite" to twist the existing system to further serve their own interests. Therefore, I consider indulging in such fantasies to be actively harmful.

BTW, I'm intrigued that you take such interest in us and our political system to advise us and write so extensively.
; )

[qarium]

I'm not going to debate this point-by-point, but that doesn't mean I agree with your claims. I just don't want to distract from a few larger points.

This depends on what you mean by a regime,

by definition any political system of a country is a regime.

you can have Dictatur as a regime
you can have democracy as a regime
you can have Theoracy as a regime
you can have republic as a regime...

the us political system by this meaning is a regime to.

and even then I'm not sure it exactly fits the textbook definition of authoritarianism. But we can agree that if politicians seize power by illegitimate means, that would be a bad thing. Whether it's the Presidency or Congress, in fact.

for me a regime performs authoritarianism if they use force/violence instead Voluntarism/consensus.

The first question is whether the Constitution is, in fact, the problem. I would argue it's not, since it gives us a way to improve it. For example, if we want to get rid of the Electoral College. Also, it has a lot of good in it, as well, atop which our laws and legal traditions are built.

the 1776"We the people" Constitution makes it impossible to make a peaceful transition
to a grassroot democratic vote system.

and this is what i call a "problem" they are forced into a bad system and can not improve it peacefully to a legitim system for the 99% but the 1% elite is very happy with this system.

The second point of contention is what would be better. It's easy to point out flaws in the current system, but trying to get everyone to agree on what to replace it with, and then trying to avoid the "1% elite" from twisting it to serve their interests even better is nearly an impossible task.

yes this is maybe true. but if you do not try it it is even more bad.

So, to me, it's much better and safer to improve on what we have, than to indulge in fantasies about tearing it down and replacing it with something better. Any observer of modern society and human behavior should quickly foresee what sort of disaster should unfold if we tried to go down that path.

nothing what i wrote has the words inside like "fantasies about tearing it down" with violence.
this is your Fantasies your interpretation of my writing.
you can not write against Force/violence and then try to tearing it down by violence....

if you study human history the last 10000years humanity always replacing old systems into something better...

but Communists for example want to replace it with something the majority does not agree to because every sane person can see that it is much worst and not a better system.

it is only legitim if you replace it with something better everyone can agree to.

Finally, all this talk about how we should just "tear everything down and start over" causes people to disengage from the political process, which furthers the sense of disenfranchisement and enables the "1% elite" to twist the existing system to further serve their own interests. Therefore, I consider indulging in such fantasies to be actively harmful.

Try to Peacefully improve it to make it better so everyone can agree is not "Harmful"

BTW, I'm intrigued that you take such interest in us and our political system to advise us and write so extensively.
; )

It is very simple why i am interested into US politics and system/regime because the USA have like 120.000 us soldiers in germany who force us into a bad system
it is a bad system because it "enables the "1% elite" to twist the existing system to further serve their own interests"

As soon as the US send their troops home we can make grassroot democratic voting system and we can have our sovereignty back.

This means anyone in the world have to deal with US politics and their regime because if someone does not deal with their problems the usa will send 100 000 soldiers into their home country to make sure you deal with their political problems.

we germans are peacefull people we do not need another 75 years of 120 000 US soldiers in germany. i think most people can agree that the us soldiers had a good and peacefull time in germany the last 75 years and no one in germany want any problem with these people if they want to they can stay another 100 years in germany no problem but they can also choose to go home.

even if i had 100 million soldiers with the best weapons in the world i would not force the US soldiers to go home by force...

but as always you can ask them nicely to go home. there is no reason for the US soldiers to stay in Germany.

[coder]

the 1776"We the people" Constitution makes it impossible to make a peaceful transition
to a grassroot democratic vote system.

I don't know why you say that, since the Constitution can be amended to make any change to it that we want.

if you do not try it it is even more bad.

I disagree. Talking about completely replacing it is destructive for the reasons I already explained. Since it won't happen, focusing on it is just a distraction and an exercise in frustration.

You don't have to agree, but you also don't have to tell us how to run our country.

nothing what i wrote has the words inside like "fantasies about tearing it down" with violence.

I didn't say that you were proposing violence. I meant any approach to wholesale replace our system of governance.

if you study human history the last 10000years humanity always replacing old systems into something better...

It doesn't go only one way. Too often, good things also got replaced with something bad.

That's why a wholesale change is extremely risky. It's much better to move incrementally.

it is only legitim if you replace it with something better everyone can agree to.

In the USA, our constitutional form of government was almost universally accepted, at least until Internet Trolls started tricking people into thinking it was bad and illegitimate.

Try to Peacefully improve it to make it better so everyone can agree is not "Harmful"

I agree: improve, not replace.

It is very simple why i am interested into US politics and system/regime because the USA have like 120.000 us soldiers in germany

During peacetime, the USA never stations troops anywhere without a legal agreement with the host country. If you want them gone, lobby your own politicians to expel them. Iraq did this, back in 2010.

who force us into a bad system

And how do they do that?

we germans are peacefull people we do not need another 75 years of 120 000 US soldiers in germany.

As far as I'm concerned, that is fine. You can deal with the Russians, yourselves.

there is no reason for the US soldiers to stay in Germany.

I think there are reasons why it's useful, such as supporting operations in Afghanistan, but I (personally) accept your sovereign right to decide for yourselves whether you want US troops there.

[qarium]

I don't know why you say that, since the Constitution can be amended to make any change to it that we want.

yes thats right but the 1% elite will make sure this will never happen.
this means you will be trapped into a bad system forever.

the point is: the 1% is able to "make any change" they want but the 99% (the people who did not make a oath to the constituion) they can not do any change.

I disagree. Talking about completely replacing it is destructive for the reasons I already explained. Since it won't happen, focusing on it is just a distraction and an exercise in frustration.
You don't have to agree, but you also don't have to tell us how to run our country.
I didn't say that you were proposing violence. I meant any approach to wholesale replace our system of governance.
It doesn't go only one way. Too often, good things also got replaced with something bad.
That's why a wholesale change is extremely risky. It's much better to move incrementally.
In the USA, our constitutional form of government was almost universally accepted, at least until Internet Trolls started tricking people into thinking it was bad and illegitimate.
I agree: improve, not replace.

I can not see the difference between improve so anyone does agree to it and repleace it with complete new that also has anyones agreement. both in the end has anyones agreement.
But I am maybe to stupid to see the difference.

I am maybe just an evil Internet Troll who does evil Psychological warfare as an approach to wholesale replace your system of governance into something "Bad" in an destructive intention
To distract you to make you feel frustration ...

If so i am maybe the most ineffective and most stupid subversive russian agent of all time.

During peacetime, the USA never stations troops anywhere without a legal agreement with the host country. If you want them gone, lobby your own politicians to expel them. Iraq did this, back in 2010.

In Germany we have the Allied Control Council who enforce control council laws on the Germans.
So yes the USA has a legal agreement but not with the 1871 German Empire but instead with the
occupation zone government. The so called BRD constitution is not validated by the German people with democratic grassroot vote it only represent the 1% occupation zone elite (Politicians/military/police). This means you do not have any legal agreement with the German people.
if we would do a grassroot vote about US soldiers stay or go home they would vote that they need to go home. but the 1% elite will never do this because the US soldiers are the basis of their regime.


Me: "who force us into a bad system"
you: "And how do they do that?"

they do this by Allied Control Council who enforce control council laws
and by secret orders to the Bundeskanzler the so calles "Kanzlerakte"
https://translate.google.com/transla...te-dank-edward

As far as I'm concerned, that is fine. You can deal with the Russians, yourselves.

well we now have 75 year of peace with the russians. we have no borders with the russians .
and we have pipelines to russia for gas.

so i agree to you that the communist soviet force was a threat to the germans 1941-1989
this means the US people did a nice service to the germans in this time.

I tell you what i think (this is not the mainstream truth) in "Operation Overlord on 6 June 1944"
the us people did not come to germany to defeat germans but instead they did come as a reinforcement against the soviet force who tried to conquer europe to make it a communist part of the UDSSR.

yes i know you read in history books the US troops conquered us in 1944 but i think they where in fact reinforcement against the communists.

but do you think we need to protect ourselves against russians in 2021 ?

I think there are reasons why it's useful, such as supporting operations in Afghanistan, but I (personally) accept your sovereign right to decide for yourselves whether you want US troops there.

Well i like your opinion about this.
So why not close the Allied Control Council and delete the control council laws?
And why not stop to force our leaders to sign the "Kanzlerakte" ?
why not stop to impose the occupation zone BRD constitution up on the Germans ?

I agree to you that the situation in Afganistan is very different to peaceful germany. this people in Afganistan maybe not ready to behave civilised.

[qarium]

You don't have to agree, but you also don't have to tell us how to run our country.

I agree to you that the Germans should not tell the US people hot to run their county.

But it is funny that the USA do exactly this to the Germans/Germany.

(.1)
"Secret Chancellor's Record /Kanzlerakte"" ---> Conspiracy theory but still true

(2.)
"SHAEF law Nr 52"
"MILITARY GOVERNMENT — GERMANY UNITED STATES ZONE
Law No. 52
Amended Blocking and Control of Property"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Headquarters_Allied_Expeditionary_Force

http://www.flegel-g.de/PDF/SHAEF52.pdf

"3) This does not affect a) the approvals and instructions issued to Act No. 52 of the SHAEF and the military governments, insofar as they are applicable to the assets subject to the restitution, whose income or proceeds, b) addendum 1 the implementation instructions of Act No. 58 of the American Military Government and Directive No. 50 of the Control Council, c) the provisions of Article 12, Paragraph 3, Clause 2 of the Financial Agreement of May 26, 1952 in the version of the Protocol on the End of the occupation regime in the Federal Republic of Germany on October 23, 1954 (Federal Law Gazette 1955 II p. 301, 381), and according to paragraph 5 sentence 3 of the letter from the Federal Chancellor to each of the three high commissioners of 23 October 1954 regarding the relief for embassies and consulates (Federal Law Gazette 1955 II pp. 213, 247) to be maintained,"

https://www.bgbl.de/xaver/bgbl/start.xav?start=%2F%2F*%5B%40attr_id%3D%27bgbl156s0437.pdf%27%5D#__bgbl__%2F%2F*%5B%40attr_id%3D%27bgbl156s0437.pdf%27%5D__1610715271622

(3.)
"Allied Control Council"
"control council laws"

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kontrollratsgesetz

"In the course of the second law on the adjustment of federal law in the area of responsibility of the Federal Ministry of Justice of 23 November 2007 [2], the legal provisions of the occupation authorities defined in the transition agreement in 1955 were repealed, unless they have been converted into federal or state law. Only the Control Council Act No. 35 on Compensation and Arbitration in Labor Disputes of August 20, 1946 and February 9, 1950, respectively, remains in force."

As you can see the USA is in Germany to control German politics!!!! and to tell the germans how to run the country.

and as soon the US people stop this... i will stop tell to the US people how to run their own country.