While I agree with the sentiment of the video, it’s not like she actually presents a better system at all.

Everything she describes is present in every system in the world, except for a few pockets that live by more ancient traditions and would not scale to 7 billions. It’s just that humans are imperfect, self-centered and that any society with this many of us is going to have some ugly parts. Communist (or socialist) countries don’t actually reduce their emissions faster than some capitalists ones. They pollute less for the simple reason that they’re poorer.

I also disagree with the argument of growth. Yeah the world is finite but we are very far from actually using even a tiny fraction of all the available resources. We can have growth for a while (better knowledge, comfort, healthcare) before we actually use up the resources of the earth.

We do need to improve the system, but it’s not going to happen overnight and suddenly become some for of utopia. It’s going to be progressive and there are going to be some steps back. If you want it to happen faster, you need to show people that better options are out there. Complaining about “the system” while doing nothing doesn’t help.

You’re denying that any progress is impossible. That’s simply not true.

You don’t really need to convince anyone. Stop subsidising the meat industry, while keeping (or even increasing) subsidies for other food products, and the real price of meat will convince people to consume less of it.

Ronald Reagan was elected and managed to significantly impact the American economy (for the worse, it lead to a large increase in inequality). Why don’t you believe that the same can be done the other way?

do you unironically believe that our current consumption model is sustainable if we use ‘green technologies’ to fuel it?

No I don’t. A lot “green tech” is bullshit, but that doesn’t mean the system can’t change, and that there are no parts of it are more sustainable than others. As I said, changing how you behave is much less important than changing the system, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it. You can consume less, buy less, more durable and reparable things, and cutting out shit you don’t need.

Rejecting any form of progress is not the way we’re going to get there.

Also blaming “the system” without offering any proven alternative doesn’t make anything better.

• lab grown meat

Simply eating significantly less meat is much more effective at reducing GHG emissions, while improving your health, being cheaper, and available today in many regions of the world.

just ask yourselves what are the grounds on which people in your country vote on

If people don’t vote with ecology in mind do you think they’re going to start a revolution for it?

French peopole hate EVERY politician, but are too lazy to revolt

As if it wasn’t the same all around the world.

lacked of an unified vision

As would any popular revolution

Ecology was only one of the many, many things the YV stood for

It was really one of the least important of their concerns, what sparked the protest was a carbon tax…

Is there any reason to believe that this would work?

In 2018 France had some of the largest social unrest which started due to a small carbon tax on gas. I don’t think people are really ready for a revolution on the grounds of ecology…

Anyway, most revolts/revolutions are diverted from their original goals and a few people take power, while the uncertainty of everything hurts many.

That’s not always true. Fairphone is able to run with a profit. There are many companies making money with solar panels, wind/hydro turbines etc…

No, you can vote, militate, talk to your friends/family, engage yourself in more sustainable behaviours so that sustainable alternatives are become profitable. Engaging in sustainable behaviours will also help you convince the people around you that it is possible to improve our current situation.

What would you have said in their place?

As said in another comment it’s testing for improving thr Wikipedia website. I personally find it to be significant improvement. Having shorter lines that are easier to read is really great.

You personally can’t do much about climate change alone, but as a collective we can.

Schnorr Signatures for example, the patent expired in 2008.

Regarding patents still valid today, there are multiple patents regarding Password Authenticated Key Exchanges, which lead to weird designs which are generally less secure such as SRP.

One thing that I recently had to face is the existence of patents for cryptography. There have been multiple time in history (and there are still some today) where patents prevent the widespread use of a cryptographic primitive or cipher, so instead worse ciphers are used.

How did we get to the point where we have to pay to perform mathematical operations?

In theory it’s not indeed, the is indeed shared between multiple instances, but in practice it’s much better.

Since it doesn’t rely on advertisement and is fully open source, the fediverse has very little tracking, and no one uses its data for advertisement. It’s also not full of the dark patterns that are often used for tracking. In the end your data is much less abused than on other platforms. It might become an issue though if an ad corporation starts running their own instances and federating with everyone.

I don’t think that calling other people “normies” is a great idea. It is very rare to be able to convince someone while showing a lack of respect for them.

The app already had E2EE at that point, this only marks the release of the v2 of their protocol, which is now considered state of the art for asynchronous messaging.

Finally, since the client is a binary distributed by Whisper, it’s not possible to verify that the client and server use the published protocol independently.

What are you talking about? The official client is open source and has reproducible builds.

Yes, the government can force them to give them encrypted garbage, and they will comply. They will also give the metadata with it, but there are multiple mechanisms in the APP (client-side) to make sure that the server can’t even access most of the metadata, because it’s either not sent or encrypted.