Look if you want to apply an overly broad definition of violent speech to score some weird semantic point, be my guest. But the original point upthread was that incitement to violence specifically, not “violent speech” in general, is outlawed in many countries, among them those that are hosting the .world instance. And that point is very much correct.
Which is all beside my original point, which was that the §130 StGB does not work like you boldly claimed it does.
What? You have just been given two example paragraphs that create a legal responsibility for the German executive to shut down violent speech. Yes, only certain kinds of violent speech as you put it in the sibling thread, but that still falsifies this statement.
What the fuck does that have to do with CEOs being a designated group or not?
But to answer your question, it depends. Specifically if you advocate for “arbitrary measures” against criminals and do it “in a manner likely to disturb the public peace” then it would be illegal under §130 StGB. Barring this caveat though it would be legal.
CEOs aren’t a designated group, they’re a voluntary group.
Oh don’t pretend you know what you are talking about. The German text says “vorbezeichneten Gruppe”, for which an alternative translation is “aforementioned group”. So the designated groups are “national, racial, religious or ethnic group[s]”. So yeah, CEOs aren’t a designated group, but not for the reason you pulled out of your ass.
To those who missed the small disclaimer in the post, 1.0 is not properly released yet. RC4 is out, actual 1.0 release should be “sometime [this] week” (barring new bugs and regressions). See: https://blog.freecad.org/2024/11/14/freecad-1-0-release-candidate-4-is-out/
Edit: Release is out now: https://blog.freecad.org/2024/11/19/freecad-version-1-0-released/
Of course, Alabama school, it’s entirely possible that the lesson was complete nonsense.
Nah, from a solely US perspective it’s correct. There were ~1.6 million military casualties in the civil war, and ~1.07 million in WW2. But there were a few more parties involved in WW2, so it’s kind of weird to frame it as less bloody. If you include civilians, estimates range from 70 to 85 million dead worldwide (not including the >20 million wounded soldiers and unknown number of wounded civilians).
Ohhh, that’s what they meant. Thanks for clearing that up, I was really confused by that unexpected US defaultism.
The US Civil War eclipsed both in the number of casualties.
Uhh what? Wikipedia says ~1.6 million casualties (including wounded, ~650k dead) in the civil war, while WW2 has 24 million military deaths alone.
can’t see how this can possibly be a good thing, you know it will mean funding with conditions.
Well, the things they are funding will get funded? How is that a bad thing?!
The conditions range from very broad, like “fix bugs” (curl), over somewhat specific like “improve cross-platform compatibility and the Linux RNG” (Wireguard), to very specific like “create a test-suite and drive development on the Fediverse account migration functionality” (ActivityPub).
You can see more for yourself at https://www.sovereign.tech/tech
All of these seem to be rather tame conditions that are just there to ensure the funds get used in the way they were intended to be used. And I don’t really see how that gives the STF any sort of direct control over these projects, while it gives those projects resources to achieve more than they might have otherwise. There are no long-term funding models that would enable implicit control over these projects.
android auto
First I heard of this, but since it seems to be just some software that runs on the hardware of car manufacturers it seems rather unlikely. But very theoretically possible, if the car manufacturer was using default process scheduling in a CPU constrained machine and now switches to real-time scheduling in an update. But that was possible for years before this news, the code has just been mainlined to the default kernel now. If the car manufacturer cared about that they would probably have done it already with a patched kernel.
[…] a public institution is really not a great example of the general population […]
Which I touched upon in my disclaimer, but in some ways it is a great example. Public institutions are defined by the general population, indirectly through their representatives creating the rules that govern them, and directly through contact with the public at large. Now if all our institutions still use this very outdated technology, and you can have trouble convincing them - during a global pandemic mind you - that using email is just as safe as using fax (so not safe at all basically), then that speaks to a larger mindset in the general population.
Many in the general public are also a lot quicker, some might even say careless, with adopting new technology of course. But as a society we are rather slow, and there are surprisingly many individuals who are hesitant or entirely resistant to adopting new technology. The fediverse usage is a bubble in a bubble here.
The internet infrastructure is another good example for this on the societal level, as there were plans in the 1980ies [!] to lay out a glass fibre network between every publicly used building in the country, which would have gotten us a good part of the way towards adopting this new material at scale. But in the end it was deemed unnecessary and too expensive and the project got canned (mixed in with rumours of “close friendship” between the chancellor and a major copper producer). Instead now we have people running around thirty years later and collecting signatures at the door for last-mile fibre network projects that seldom make quorum and thus almost never materialise public funding.
- […] But also how are Germans technologically behind regarding common personal life?
I bet you wherever in Germany you are, if you go to the website of your local city government right now they will have a still active fax number in their contact information. I guarantee it. Well if they have a website that is.
Which is a bit silly as an example but highlights the central problem, which is that adoption of new technology happens at a glacial pace, especially in public institutions. There are many reasons for that of course, some good, like the aforementioned inclination towards privacy, some bad like whatever allows fax machines to still be around.
And don’t get me started on internet infrastructure… In an international comparison we certainly aren’t leading the field regarding adoption of new technologies.
Oh yeah, can’t use the same IP range as your LAN, that will lead to problems. :D Glad it’s fixed.
Out of curiosity, does forwarding work now without the output (-o) command in PostUp?
Like I said in another thread on this post, I’m pretty sure that’s because they are forwarding input but not output in the PostUp rules. Setting a /32 in AllowedIPs works fine for me.
What are you trying to say? That reply also shows AllowedIPs set to a /32 on the server side.
I don’t think that’s what the setting does. Anyway, I have them set to a /32 IP in my server config and it works nonetheless. I get full access to the /24 behind the server from the client.
You have ALL traffic being routed over Wireguard here.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it the other way around? All Wireguard traffic is forwarded to the local interface.
I think the problem might be your PostUp/PostDown lines have an in-interface (-i) but are missing an out-interface (-o) for the forwarding. Try this:
PostUp = iptables -A FORWARD -i %i -j ACCEPT; iptables -A FORWARD -o %i -j ACCEPT; iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o ens3 -j MASQUERADE
PostDown = iptables -D FORWARD -i %i -j ACCEPT; iptables -D FORWARD -o %i -j ACCEPT; iptables -t nat -D POSTROUTING -o ens3 -j MASQUERADE
The number of littered bottles, with or without a cap, is greater than the number of loose caps,
That smells like survivorship bias. Your dataset is skewed by loose caps being way harder to find due to being smaller. It stands to reason that all those bottles without a cap you find will have also had their cap littered in the vast majority of cases.
Again if you want to see it like that, fine. Doesn’t change the fact that people from these countries mean something different than you when they say inciting violence is outlawed. They are obviously referring to their specific laws, that use that specific language, in this case verbatim. The “oh but there are conditionals in that law” bit you are doing here isn’t the gotcha you seem to think it is. We are aware of that. And it’s not relevant to the original question of there being potential legal consequences for the people hosting the lemmy world instance. So what is even your point?