🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@idanoo So i fixed the error file gave, which was unrelated to the main problem...

File now shows it is in fact an x64:

❯ file ./QuPath
./QuPath: ELF 64-bit LSB pie executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, interpreter /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2, for GNU/Linux 2.6.18, not stripped

@CanXClV Maybe we can finally inspire some good poetry out of them :)

@rolle I have everything in the list except a PC with windows.

@sergeant like a little nautious and flush

@sergeant

That makes sense

FYI I will be bringing down #QOTO gitlab server soon to try to fix the performance issues on it... nothing else should be effected

@koherecoWatchdog Perhaps... if she made no indication she was going to go public, and she was paid anyway "just in case" then yea probably wouldnt be blackmail

@bjarne If you take hush money, then its blackmail.. the fact that you release the damning information after the fact doesnt stop it from being blackmail...

@Jonathanglick

Ahh that makes sense, thanks.

@koherecoWatchdog

@koherecoWatchdog As stated previously, blackmail does not need to be limited to illegal acts. This I know for sure as I have spoken to my own lawyers about it in detail recently.

@koherecoWatchdog I recently had dealing with lawyers about black mail.. the act does not need to be illegal, it only needs to seek to defame.

While your explanation as to what trump did makes sense, and sure, sounds like it is illegal from an IRS perspective... it is clear stormy daniels taking the money was blackmail in my eyes.

I'm all for seeing trump arrested and all.. .but im so confused...

Hush money isnt illegal... however taking money as a payment to not release personal and damaging information to the public, that is blackmail and IS illegal... so if anything isnt Stormy Daniels the one doing something illegal by blackmailing trump and accepting a pay off to not go public?

@koherecoWatchdog

I said it should be against the law to exclude people based on the business they deal in.. that isnt the same to say they need to accept everyone without any conditions of any kind.

If you want to exclude someone because they are below a certain minimum income threshold, or cant keep a certain amount of money in their account, etc... fine... But if they want to exclude someone for where they get their money (which should not be information the bank can access) not fine.

As I said before its like saying "It should be illegal to discriminate against gay people and refuse to sell them a cake because their gay", this is not the same as saying that everyone has the right to cake.. There are other reasons you may get denied access to cake, for one, maybe because you cant afford it.

@rms

@koherecoWatchdog

You hqavent made that case to me... I see no reason in anything you said that you cant be granted a right to privacy even if there isnt an explicit right to be unbanked... though i am all for any laws that ensure you have a right to be unbanked, so im fine with securing that right as well.

@rms

@koherecoWatchdog @rms

Im not advocating for the right to have a bank account, that might be a natural consequence of a right to privacy, but it isnt the direct principle at play.

@koherecoWatchdog I never said anything about "the right to have a bank account" so everything that follows from that statement is moot.

I said that **if** you have a back account you have a right to privacy over your transactions. They can deny you a bank account all you want, they just cant use who you take or give money to as a criteria to do so since that will not be information available to them.

The right to not be discriminated against if your gay when you buy a cake does not imply a right for everyone to own cakes.. the logic is similar.

@koherecoWatchdog

Agreed, which is why they will violate privacy as long as they are allowed to do so, and the urge to maximize profits will always be too high for them to be privacy respecting due to market pressures... which is exactly why we need to make it a law and force them (And all of their competition) to be privacy respecting.

@rms