It’s fascinating the reaction to someone discussing something, you block them and increase the bubble you live in. Go ahead, block, down vote, or whatever you want, I’ll continue the discussion anyway.

Yes I call that literally bumping into someone, but I’m not a native English speaker, so maybe there is a layer to that idiom unbeknownst to me. You seem eager to make assumptions though, like you seem to imply now that I think that’s OK? Well, it’s OK to trip and accidentally hit someone, it’s not OK to fake tripping to assault, or steal from, someone. It seems that should have been very obvious… Anyway I am not expecting a reasonable response from you anymore if that’s the level of your discussion.

The guy bumps into her, and in a weird way it feels intentional, but I wouldn’t feel sure of it just by the video, the only thing I feel confident to assume is that he is tripping balls, maybe so much he really suddenly fell like that? Who knows… His right hand grabs the hip of the girl, and the left one we cannot see it. It could be he reached for a boob grab, kinda odd from that angle, it seems easier to reach for the ass from behind but I don’t have experience on groping people without consent so what do I know. I was also suspicious if he tried to grab something from the backpack but looking closely it doesn’t look like it. The lack of reaction of the girl is strange as well, but maybe she is high as the sky and doesn’t notice shit, she just keeps dancing.

No, but unfortunately not wanting to become an internet sensation is not going to protect you from becoming one. I respect him for not wanting to be known, but none of us is in control of that. What we do in public may be seen and shared without us having a say in it.

Way to reduce the conversation to nothingness… Good enough guy? We literally know nothing about him, not even the name. The only thing we see from him is his (awesome techno) dancing and him threatening a guy for bumping into a girl, probably with the intention of protecting the girl but he doesn’t seem to check on her or anything. We don’t know anything.

I already said that each individual can choose to follow his wish or not, but the conversation is clearly around the legal aspect, he is not requesting to be left alone (not himself literally), his lawyer said for him he doesn’t want to be a public figure to defend him from the author of the video profiting from his image (and I’m glad he succeeded). Since what we have is the word of a lawyer, this conversation refers mostly to the legal aspect, which is what the first comment downvoted implied, good luck defending a client to not be a public figure after being recorded in a public place. No one can control that, no matter what we would like to think or what we feel about it.

You are free to drop the conversation at any time you feel is right, I’ll be glad to continue commenting on this topic with whomever because for me (who absolutely knows the bare minimum of law) it is fascinating. The idea of being anonymous is such an abstract concept (one that I very much like to protect) that strange situations occur when law and the internet collide.

A few countries have tried (and some succeeded I think) to pass laws to protect the public image of individuals, such laws that I’ve seen are called the right to be forgotten. It’s an easy idea to defend, we all want to be able to remove ourselves from the harsh view of society and something important to people suffering all kinds of abuse. But the law was pushed by assholes that wanted to use it to censor news and search engines to hide their history of corruption or whatever else. The right to anonymity doesn’t override everything else, and such is this case, and unfortunately for our techno viking it won’t remove him from the internet, at least I’m glad he managed to keep his name hidden.

Your feelings have nothing to do here, nor mine. We all have a right to our image but it applies to specific cases, not everything. If you are in a public place and someone takes a photo and you are in it, well, that’s how it goes. We might not like it and there is a case to be made for morality but it is not forbidden by law. Remember the case of those two in a stadium or concert or some shit and when they saw themselves in the big screen hugging they hid under the barrier because they were cheating on their respective partners? Wouldn’t they like to say no one is allowed to take their images x) but they can’t. Because there was no malicious intent in the recording, they don’t own the rights of the recording, and even if they own the rights to their image, they were in a public space where cameras are expected. They were not the objective of the camera, they were not the center of attention, so their right doesn’t apply here. Now if someone would try selling shirts with their image from the video, they could legally fight it and stop the seller.

Now for the techno-viking, knowing his wish to remain anonymous I would be on the side of trying to respect it by not sharing even more his video, but in this case, legally it is a bit complex, he is slightly the main focus of the video, but the video is a recording of a public event and might be more than just him but cut to this specific length only. He might not have wanted to be a famous internet sensation but rarely ever anyone can choose whether they are or not, and the right to our image rarely applies to memes. Where the author of the video fucked up is trying to make him into a sellable image.

So the previous comments being downvoted are actually more right than wrong, they are just expressing the reality that so many do not like in Lemmy.

The techno-viking is internet history, whether he likes it or not, and whether some respect his wish or not is up to each person, but legally I wouldn’t bet on him having any ground.

I often think of this SMBC comic. It left a deep mark for me and it came out over 13 years ago.

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-06-24

We are all faking it, we don’t have a clue what we are doing. Some are aware of it, some are not.

That is actually an important distinction, with the burger example you only get the “do it myself” part and some people will say “meh I can deal not getting home made burger”.

Hiring an electrician though for example. You let someone in your house. Without self hosting is like having an electrician constantly knowing what you do with the electricity, like he never leaves the house.

Personally I always hated the UI. Big bold ugly boxes of bright colors and a little text in a corner? Ugh

The best phone hardware and best phone UI, Nokia N900 with Maemo. Will never forgive Microsoft for grabbing Nokia and fucking it up, although Nokia managers were doing great on their own on destroying the company.

And special mention to the OpenMoko project. Pity it died.

My socks are not boring, excuse me!

Yeah, you are right, thanks for the reminder.

No, that’s not similar at all. If you have to stop to consider the political opinions of everyone involved in anything you ever do, buy, use… You’ll never end up using anything. Do you actually mean I cannot enjoy old art done in the past because the ones creating it probably had some shitty ideals, opinions or morals?

A shitty person can do something good. Accepting something good from a shitty person doesn’t mean we need to share or support everything about that person. You can criticize one aspect of something and accept the good of the same thing. The world is not so black and white.

Edit: mind you, there’s a case to be made when supporting something good means providing indirect support to something bad. But that is far from accepting you will use software from people with shitty ideas.

Read it again x)

He wants to buy office PCs as there should be an influx of them. He doesn’t want a new PC for windows.

Thanks for the warning, I will do the same then, I was left wondering as I made the rules… Why would they keep using the same release name making it easy to find? This makes more sense :)

Thank you, you three, setting this up right away.