Skip Navigation

Posts
38
Comments
252
Joined
3 yr. ago

All of this user's content is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

  • Plus I cringe at the thought of 75% of the CBC budget being spent on content moderation.

    Theoretically, could they outwardly federate only? For example, they make a post which gets pushed out to other instances, but they would set their instance to not allow any external posts or comments to be federated into their instance, and they could close registrations. That way, the rest of the Fediverse could follow and interact with their content, and they wouldn't have to deal with moderation. I'm not sure if that's really how federation works, so please correct any inaccuracies.

  • I don't really understand why people are downvoting this post. I think this might be a symptom of the, imo, rather nebulous interpretation of the use of upvotes and downvotes.

  • […] treat each Lemmy community as a community, not an audience.

    I think it depends on the community in question, and the nature of the post. If, for example, one is looking for an answer to a question, or help with something, I would argue that one would, generally, want to target the largest relevant audience to maximize the surface area of potential people who can help. At any rate, more specifically, I don't think it's one or the other, but rather both — one would want to find the largest and the most relevant community. By my experience, another common behavior is to cross-post to multiple communities. This seems to be especially more common in a federated forum like Lemmy where there could be any number of duplicate communities.

  • No: Imo, this is up to the discretion and responsibility of the parents.

  • I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. I was outlining an example where the outcome is favorable by all parties, but the principles used to arrive at the outcome differ. If I understand you correctly, you seem to be describing an outcome that wouldn't be favorable for all parties.

  • Drugs.

  • I think the implications here is that the reasons it gets legalized can have an impact on the specifics of the policy.

    Could you elaborate on what you mean?

  • Recently, my life feels like a blur, like I dont really remember what happened even in the past 2 weeks, and this has cause me some anxiety. […] How much of your life do you remember, like do you only remember major events in your life, or do you remember like what you have been doing for the past 2 weeks. […]

    I experience the same sort of feelings. What I find helps me a little bit is to journal at the end of the night and document what I did during the day and what happened during the day. This helps me reflect and ground myself on what goes on around me. Instead of me just existing with events passively happening around me, it forces me to sort of anchor events to my life. Having this sort of stuff documented also allows me to reflect on it in the future.

  • And parents are held responsible if they give it to kids

    Imo, only if it can be proven that the parent is being willfully negligent regarding the safety the child.

    Also, if a product that claimed to be safe, but actually wasn't, was purchased and given to the child, then this responsibility should fall on the producer only.

  • Yes, but it shouldn’t be legalized for the wrong reasons.

    This is kind of an interesting thought, imo. If one agrees with the resultant policy, does the rationale used to get there matter? Perhaps it does in principle, but I wonder if it matters in practice. The end result is the same.

  • […] ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine […]

    I'll be honest, I don't really understand this one. I'd guess that this is likely some hold over grudge from COVID, but I don't really understand why it's still a concern to get, presumably, more open access to those drugs. Aren't we long past that conversation? Feels like beating a dead horse.

  • […] raw milk […]

    I'd support raw milk being legal for consumers to purchase so long as the manufacturers of said raw milk could be held to account for harm caused to a consumer who purchased it under the belief that it was safe — likely, this would also mean that, if it isn't safe, the product containing raw milk must otherwise display explicit warnings. I think a person should be allowed to take take their own risks.

  • […] psychedelics […]

    I'm glad that it seems like the war on drugs is showing cracks. I completely support a move to legalize psychedelics.

  • At least with Windows, most people know what its normally like at home, but thats less true for Linux.

    Yeah, that's a fair point that they wouldn't have a comparison, so they wouldn't know if it's always like that. One could perhaps make an educated guess, depending on circumstance, but, without any first-hand experience or exposure, it would be just that: a guess.

  • Hm, but I'm not sure people would attribute that to the design of the underlying OS itself rather than just the employer. Like do those people with restrictions on Windows blame Microsoft? It'd be the same as someone blaming the Linux maintainers for employer placed restrictions on an OS running Linux. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure someone would still do that, but I'm not convinced that the majority would think that way — I think most people would be able to make the distinction.

  • I still expect it to be done in the open, one of the things Munich got right was upstreaming all their changes, which meant that even when it was cancelled, nothing was lost. Maintaining out of tree changes is just way to much work

    Would you be able to cite a source for this Munich program? I'd like to read more about it.