Is furry a sexual orientation or a kink?

No, the political part is you forcing your sexuality to be discussed in a non-sexual context. I don’t care what you do in your bedroom but I don’t want to be forced to talk to you about it. It’s not relevant to our work therefore we don’t need to discuss it at work. Unless you’re trying to fuck me I don’t need to hear about it at all and that’s probably not something you should be doing at work either, certainly not in this context.

Nothing I have said is exclusive to queer people. They are universal rules that everyone should follow.

First of all, if you don’t think it’s weird to start off an introduction with “I’m queer and I’m a furry” then I’m not sure what to tell you. The vast majority of people in the world are going to be put off by you introducing yourself that way. That’s personal shit you talk about once you get to know somebody not an ice breaker. You can make the argument that people should be more accepting of that kind of thing but the fact is this sort of introduction breaks just about every social norm there is and when you do that willingly you should expect people to get uncomfortable.

Second of all, quit forcing your kinks on everyone else. I don’t care what weird kinky shit you do in your free time but I don’t want to talk to you about it, especially not at work. It doesn’t matter if your thing is women’s feet, dudes buttholes, or guys dressed as a cartoon wolf, the answer is the same, ew stop. It isn’t bigotry to not want to be forced to deal with your sexuality as a prerequisite for interacting with you. I probably don’t want to be interacting with you at all, much less talking about what you like to do with your genitals, so stop oversharing and keep that shit to yourself.

And some people can’t pull their head out of their own ass long enough to see that their problems aren’t the same as everyone else’s problems. You’re right though, it’s naive to expect others not to view themselves and their pet issues as the only thing worth discussing in the world. Your response being a great case study in how you can do exactly that while also implying that no one else even has problems to begin with.

When can we stop inserting politics into every little thing? I know it’s a big deal at the moment, what with the fascist takeover of our government, but are Linux devs and their moderators really the people we expect to represent all of us in that fight? They don’t have the power to help in that capacity.

We should be able to accept people’s help in whatever realm they are offering it without trying to force them to help with everything else at the same time. These guys signed up to support open source software. That’s an important and helpful thing but it isn’t gay rights activism. That is not their area of expertise. They’re not supposed to be representing LGBTQ interests in anything except the right to privacy. Quit making them the arbiter of morality in battles they didn’t sign up to fight to begin with. It doesn’t help anybody. It only redirects anger away from the people that we really should be mad at, namely our absolute disaster of a federal government.

The furry phone? That’s not really my scene.

Seriously though, I’ve never heard of that. I’ll look into it

I’m calling fake news. I don’t recall seeing any German pastries in the Louvre when I was there.

I have a feeling this kind of thing is only going to accelerate their development and that’s a good thing. I’d switch today if there was a good option.

Those same things were said about hundreds of other technologies that no longer exist in any meaningful sense. Current usage of a technology, which in this specific case I would argue is largely frivolous anyway, is not an accurate indicator of future usage.

Yep, the only thing I’m 100% confident about in this whole mess is that Trump will find some heretofore unimagined way to make it worse.

This headline is a really roundabout way to say “kicked out”. He was kicked out of parliament.

Lumen and Verizon both have subsea cable connections to Europe. EXA Infrastructure is in the process of acquiring Aqua Comms, both of which own subsea cables. Google, MS, and Meta have all invested in subsea infrastructure to varying degrees as well. These are not monopolies in the classic sense of the word but they’re not exactly owned by benevolent interests either.

That said, the point is that a malicious government with sufficient pull, for example the current Trump administration, wouldn’t have to bully very many people to severely limit the flow of information between North America and Europe. So much of the internet depends on US infrastructure that this wouldn’t be terribly far off from censoring the entire internet. In that scenario there isn’t much that can be done about it. Europe can control their own information flow to Asia and Africa but at minimum this would be a severe disruption for a significant amount of time. Other entities might take such an opportunity to impose their own restrictions and make the situation even worse.

They do wade into the IP / transport territory a bit but those are not the 6 companies I was referring to. I was thinking of Verizon / AT&T / Lumen / Zayo / etc.

Except that never happens. They get millions and then go bankrupt some other company.

Your last sentence is spot on but it doesn’t capture the full weight of the impact rich people vibes have on the world. The perceived value of every stock, and by extension the economy as a whole, is almost exclusively a vibe check of rich guys. There is no objective information about a company that is more indicative of that company’s success than how rich people feel about it.

While there are interesting projects in that list, everything that I see is either only useful in a local setting, like wireless mesh networks and their derivative protocols, or assumes that no one is actively restricting what can be transmitted over the privately owned long haul fiber networks that make up the backbone of the internet. How would someone in Seattle transmit more data than can be sent via a ham radio equivalent signal to someone in New York without the use of those fiber networks?

Perhaps you misunderstood my point in your haste to make a complicated problem seem simple but no, my argument has not changed.

No it isn’t. Either traffic is allowed to flow freely or it isn’t. Once you start down the “isn’t” path there’s not much that can be done to get around the fact that a few people control a huge chunk of the infrastructure.

Please explain how you can bypass carrier enforced traffic shaping policy.

From geti2p.net:

I2P’s protocols are efficient on most platforms, including cell phones, and secure for most threat models. However, there are several areas which require further improvement to meet the needs of those facing powerful state-sponsored adversaries, and to meet the threats of continued cryptographic advances and ever-increasing computing power.

The people involved in the project you’re referring to acknowledge that governments can, by influencing carrier policy, disrupt and subvert the project’s intended function. Why then are you implying they are incorrect?

So do a million different forms of encryption. That doesn’t make the infrastructure any less centralized. If the people who own the fiber decide to only allow pre-approved types of traffic to cross their networks then it doesn’t make any difference what sort of protocols exist. Building free cross-country or subsea fiber routes is not economically viable and the internet doesn’t exist without them.