Napoleon had a tremendous impact on many western nations long after his defeat. The most notable and positive example in my opinion is the base of the modern civil law system still in effect today in many of the conquered countries. The same codes based on the Napoleonic code were also exported to the colonies of those countries and many others which then retained it after their independence. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Code. And IMHO the civil law is a much better legal system than the common law used in most of the US, the UK and Australia among others. This goes to show that it's never binary and even the worst tyrants and dictators also sometimes achieve good positive things. This is probably valid for all of them.
a) his discontempt for Germany (which he successfully embarked on, considering him dissolving the German Empire)
b) his utilization of enlightenment policies to subdue countries, creating a narrative in which Napleonese France IS the enlightenemnt (which is of course BS)
In the case of Germany, apart from forcibly recruting citizens into his army where they mainly served as cannon fodder, apart from the pillaging of french troops, apart from massive increases in taxations for the poor that were already hit due to unemployment caused by his continental system, apart from churches being repurposed as horsestalls as a form of practical joke, the worst thing he did, was that he utilized things like the code-civil and other enlightenment reforms to turn a new tiny middle-class into loyalists, stirring up division Germany still hasn't really freed itself from.
His policy was the equivalent of when today's West is forcibly bringing "democracy" to Iraq/Afghanistan/..., instead of letting it arise organically, which in turn taints the whole franchise, the whole idea, as un-Arabic, un-Muslim etc.
Reforming the law to enable anyone to work in any job would have happened likely anyways, but Napoleon propagandizing it into his idea, into a french idea, he effectivly laid the groundwork for the discontempt in Germany for enlightenment ideas till this day. And yes, this includes post-napoleonese German anti-semitism.
Germany didn't even exist during the Napoleonic campaigns so I doubt he had much contempt for it. The Napoleonic wars are actually a catalyst in the formation of modern Germany as a political entity by definitely ending the Holy Roman Empire and cementing Prussia as a major power in the region.
> His policy was the equivalent of when today's West is forcibly bringing "democracy" to Iraq/Afghanistan/..., instead of letting it arise organically
But this is it arising organically. For all intent and purpose France and Germany share globally the same political area. They are direct neighbor and their histories constantly intermingle. The French Revolution is not an exogenous event catapulted on Europe from outside. It is a product of the time and is directly linked to France position in what was already a very connected Europe.
You can use Google family link to force his account into parental control and force Youtube into safe mode (if he's logged in). You can also force this using DNS to prevent him from accessing non family friendly content.
DNS will only let me block specific domains, right? So I can't do blocking of specific channels that way (though I do use a nice big blocklist for adult content [0])
Google is a bit of a non-starter for me unfortunately. Their tools for protecting kids' eyes from content are probably great, but then their just building a catalog of my kids' viewing habits from a really young age... which I find off-putting. Maybe if that was the only way to block I'd go down that road, but there are others.
More likely, now it is not going to be a pure luck to find yourself in the position where you are sitting along in 3 seats, but you will need to pay for this privilege + as a bonus you get pillow and blanket.
I've been on two 13+ hour flights this year and both times the plane was nearly empty. 20-30 people for an entire dreamliner. We each had about 4-6 rows in between us, and of course everyone was laying down to sleep. I sure hope they don't try to push you to sit up in this case.
> So this means that if the plane is empty they'll now forbid passengers from using 3 seats and ask them to pay instead?
I was wondering what exactly they were offering, and to my surprise this what I would do after the seating process and the snacks were handed out. Typically the lights would be low and people moving about made it easier to ID.
I was asked not to do that since in about 15+ international long haul flights, with various airliners but other than that I thought it just made more sense if there were 2-3 of us on a single row while there unused rows in the back.
Alternatively on Android you can use Smali Patcher https://forum.xda-developers.com/apps/magisk/module-smali-pa... with a rooted Android. This program will generate a magisk module that will enable disabling the secure flag for the pesky apps disallowing screenshots. It will also allow you to enable mock locations. At your own risk.
At some point I think we have to consider the view of Karl Popper: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."
The problem remains as who defines what is intolerant. But in this case I think the argument is sound. This like was clearly endorsement. And the act was inexcusable no matter how offended anyone can be in their religion.
Intolerance refers specifically to those people who fight for their views with means outside of civil discourse, i.e. violence and intimidation (1), thus destroying the possibility of civil discourse.
Deciding who these people are really isn't a hard problem in practice; a democratic society would have no problem with it.
I've never met anybody who agreed with me on everything, including me yesterday. Obviously all of those past mes that disagree with now me were intolerant asshats.
Terrorism is defined as the use of violence to intimidate or suppress political opponents. With that in mind, Popper's Paradox of Tolerance is simply an ideological framework for justifying terrorism. You can respond to violence with violence, but responding to words with violence is a game-breaking attack on the foundations of a civil society. We exist as a society because we have a shared expectation that others won't respond to our words with violence.
"Terrorism is defined as the use of violence to intimidate or suppress political opponents."
Is it really? Then I suppose war is terrorism, and the military is a terrorist organization.
If you respond that the definition only applies to non-state actors, I have to ask: why does the state get a free pass to do the same thing? Not legally or practically, but ethically. Why?
In practice, all that accomplishes is everyone tries to cast their opponents as "intolerant" so they may be censored. And "intolerant" is such a broad term, it can be applied to nearly everything, and abuse is guaranteed.
Accusing a whole group of racism and guilt based on skin color? Intolerant.
Want to close the borders? That's intolerant of those who want to enter.
Drawing disrespectful cartoons you know will cause backlash and division? Intolerant.
Boycotting a country or business because they endorse said cartoons? Also intolerant.
> The trouble is deciding who gets to wield that force
Whoever is wielding the force is the one gets to wield it. We can have a more civilized society by strictly limiting the wield the force by limiting opportunity to weild it by clear defined individual rights.
Which means as ever it's super important to maintain and preferably improve democratic processes to keep the state accountable for that terrible responsibility.
I, for one, am not particularly troubled by someone being punished for celebrating a fundamentalist murdering a teacher.
We’re going to have to be doing more of this.
Either we have to treat socially undeveloped nations like a star trek, noninterferance and isolation until some bar is passed, or we have to police opinions. You can’t have peace and a considerable population that does not support some of the basic values of your society. If change doesn’t come this sort of thing is going to keep happening until the people fear it enough to start turning it into state sponsored ethnic violence.
It is a much more difficult solution than being blindly tolerant or blindly racist, you have to walk a very fine line of being specifically intolerant of certain ideas, expressions, and actions.
Very satisfied NextDNS user here. Easy to set up, and it’s a surprise for me how much nicer ad and tracker blocking is over my entire network (all laptops, phones, smart TV etc.) than just using a blocker in my web browser.
Some accept anonymous cash payments like mullvad and do not require any information.
Everyone here probably knows VPNs are not an all-in solution for privacy nor security but they're certainly a good added layer to add and most likely have better privacy standards than most ISPs.
A person more concerned about privacy should just add one or more layers above/below the VPN ... like ISP > VPN > Tor for instance at the price of substantially lower performance ...
Or you could do the opposite with a cash accepting VPN such as Mullvad ... and only connect to them using ISP > Tor > VPN which would also provide a decent layer that would avoid the massive "maicious high risk flagging" of Tor Exit nodes everywhere while preventing the VPN provider from knowing your IP. You certainly have to hit less captchas with VPNs than with Tor ...
There are also quite a few VPN/VPS providers accepting Monero that can be used and paid for "anonymously" for adding more layers.
If you live in a large city with a decent view on places offering free legal public wifi, you could also buy a long range Wifi Directionnal Antenna and USB Wifi adapter to add such layer while remaining at home and avoid having to move to such places. Mac address randomization is trivial and integrated in most OSes now. Again it's not perfect but it's an added "convenient" layer not requiring physical moving.
Couldn't the indexing issue be solved by only having the client/user do the indexing while e-mails are stored encrypted on the server? Ideally on an encrypted device which will keep/maintain the indexing.
Shifting the burden of indexing e-mail (and decrypting/encrypting the at rest) on the client willing to achieve this?
Edit:
The webmail/imap/pop provider would only have to receive an e-mail and use a client provide public key to encrypt the mail and let it rest.
The webmail client could (in browser) or through their app do the decryption/indexing locally. Could be done with an extension.
