Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)P

Pamasich

@ Pamasich @kbin.earth

Posts
0
Comments
305
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Piefed vs. Lemmy?

    Jump

  • There's also Mbin which doesn't really have this political baggage that both Lemmy and Piefed seem to have.

    So they're not really limited to just Lemmy.

  • Piefed vs. Lemmy?

    Jump

  • Mbin is very much still in active development. Where did you hear it wasn't?

    Are you confusing Mbin with /kbin maybe?

  • Threadiverse Major Defederations Graph

    Jump

  • I can understand people staying on Reddit more than those staying on Twitter to be honest.

    At least spez hasn't gone full nazi yet, or provided tools for generating pedophilia.

    Both of which people seem to be perfectly fine with. So it doesn't surprise me they're fine with Reddit too.

  • When will the Fediverse deal with the undisclosed self promo that is happening here, before it turns Piefed/Lemmy into sloppy spam links discussion platform?

    Jump

  • The fediverse doesn't like that kind of approach from devs. Both Piefed and Tesseract got criticized heavily over doing stuff like that.

  • Do you feel like Lemmy is like a PHPBB?

    Jump

  • Check out NodeBB, which is also part of the threadiverse.

  • US Expats(or hopeful expats), what countries do you consider your good home away from home?

    Jump

  • Expat is the term used by immigrants who think they're better than the bad immigrants because they come from the good countries. At least that's how it is in my country. Usually they're the worse kind of immigrants because they refuse to integrate.

  • Deleted

    How does Lemmy / Pieface work?

    Jump

  • Is there a way to transfer posts etc from one account to another?

    Pretty sure there isn't.

    I made a Pieface account, but I can't see the comments and posts from my Lemmy account. What's up with that?

    Lemmy and Piefed work a lot like email. Your posts are sent to a list of recipients, and only the receiving servers are aware of them. On Lemmy/Piefed, that list of recipients includes: the community you're posting in, the user you're replying to, any users you mention in the post, and users that follow you. Any server with a user on that list will get your post, any server that isn't featured on that list will not. Communities will then fan out posts they receive to all their subscribers, allowing them to reach a greater audience.

    If you posted to an obscure community, then that explains why your post isn't visible on Piefed. If you registered on a smaller Piefed instance, that could also explain why they might not have received your post. Less users means that, even if the community is large, it's less likely for someone to be subscribed to it.

    It's also possible that the Piefed instance has blocked your Lemmy instance. Or, if you just made your posts, that it's just taking a while for the two servers to communicate.

  • SOLVED: Is it in any way incorrect to interpret a downvote as a "fuck you" in a 1-on-1 convo?

    Jump

  • Interesting, seems like lemvotes doesn't show downvotes for Mbin users. Only upvotes.

  • What do you like about the fediverse and why?

    Jump

  • How do you know?

    I've seen more than enough bots here, and we know that only the tip of the iceberg is actually visible with things like this. Bots nowadays can pretend to be humans scarily well.

  • Deleted

    What online sites allow free speech?

    Jump

  • I know someone who has gotten temp banned from 4chan for their speech repeatedly, so it doesn't seem to fit what OP is asking for imo.

  • What would you like to see on the Fediverse?

    Jump

  • If you agree with this view: Why do you think societies should allow billionaires to exist? How does that benefit the common good?

    Jump

  • We’re seeing the consequences of your approach today

    We're not, because countries don't have competent people in charge. Except maybe New York, I'm not too familiar with the guy's work, not being from the US myself and all, but I've only seen positive news in the right direction about him.

    Just to clarify here, I interpreted your question philosophically, not related to a specific real world situation. So I answered with an ideal scenario. A "if x were to be the case then y" scenario. X isn't the case, so y doesn't apply. But y would apply in a world where x is the case.

    My approach in fact has not come to pass, so we're not seeing the consequences of it. We're in need of a lot of politicial legwork to weaken the power of money first before billionaires can become a net benefit.

    That said, some countries like mine do apply wealth taxes to the rich, and my (non-US) state had actually redistributed their surplus in tax income (almost certainly due to wealth tax, as the rich love this state for its low taxes iirc) to the people last year, by lowering the cost of healthcare this year iirc. So i think we are seeing some of what I'm talking about selectively. Though I do agree that selective cases aren't nearly enough, and that the current situation doesn't result in a net positive for having billionaires.

    The world isn’t run in the interest of the general public, but by unscrupulous billionaires who don’t give the general public a second thought.

    Yeah and that's because the world isn't run by competent people but by corrupt bastards who only care about money and getting reelected.

    Also I think this is a very US centric opinion. I agree that my scenario doesn't currently properly apply to any country I'm aware of, but money has vastly different power in different parts of the world. "The world" is a big term, and I really don't think it applies globally. Money doesn't buy you everything everywhere. Otherwise the US wouldn't have been the only country (that mattered) to oppose the OECD deal. I know my country ended up implementing almost all of it, except for the part that would have had to be implemented by everyone to be effective. I assume at least a few others did as well. I doubt the money was in favor of implementing it, yet it still happened.

    Therefore, one can only conclude that your idea of some "Führer" who act justly leads to disaster.

    I think you're kind of putting words in my mouth there. I know the specific term here is meant to be a form of figure of speech, not something I said, but I'm clearly not talking about having a benevolent dictator in charge. In fact, while I didn't bring it up here, I do believe that having a single guy at the top of any branch of government is inherently problematic. Imo more countries should use the Swiss approach of having a council of equals from multiple parties as the head of state, not a single president or prime minister. it's the only way to properly represent the people even at the highest level.

    I might have to clarify here: To me, a politician's job in a representative democracy is to represent their constituents and act in their interest. Not pocket money and act as a puppet to the highest payer. That's how I differentiate between a competent and an incompetent politician. Hence the better the system enforces this, the better it is imo. As a little background for my opinion above on having more than one person in charge.

    What you might have in mind may be a technocracy

    No, what I have in mind is representative democracy with competent representatives. Simple as that. Not technocracies or other alternative forms of government.

  • If you agree with this view: Why do you think societies should allow billionaires to exist? How does that benefit the common good?

    Jump

  • Corrupt politicians are incompetent politicians. That's my point here.Competent politicians wouldn't be corrupt. They might not exist, but that doesn't make this untrue.

    You're right that what I'm describing is an ideal. But OP asked a philosophical question, not one about today's realities, or at least that's how I interpreted their question.

    If politicians were competent, then they would redistribute the wealth from billonaires to social programs that would benefit the people.

    That said, I disagree with you on this being unsolvable. Like I said, laws can go a long way. And not everywhere does money buy you everything.

    There are countries with progressive wealth taxes on the rich, with the rate going higher the wealthier they are.Many countries, including rich ones like Switzerland, were in favor of the OECD minimum corporate tax deal until the US withdrew, which would have unfairly impacted their economies and caused every company to pack up and leave. But at least in my country, can't speak for others, it still got implemented except for one aspect which is postponed indefinitely.

    But based on the news I've been seeing, isn't New York also taking great steps in this direction? So I don't think it's quite the impossibility for politicians to go against big money even in the US.

    Money is powerful in the current world, but it's not omnipotent. You can go against them, and you can create a world where it is powerless. You just need people willing to do so.

  • If you agree with this view: Why do you think societies should allow billionaires to exist? How does that benefit the common good?

    Jump

  • But you can prevent that with laws and taking corruption serious.

    A politician taking bribes from rich people is corruption and wouldn't be allowed with competent people in charge.

    Rich people influencing politics through ads and such can be outlawed by politicians taking election integrity serious.

    Money buys representation because the elite in charge prefers corruption over doing their jobs as politicians. Not because it inherently does. There are actions that can be taken to prevent it, they're just not being taken.

  • If you agree with this view: Why do you think societies should allow billionaires to exist? How does that benefit the common good?

    Jump

  • I think we have differing ideas of competency in a representative democracy.

  • If you agree with this view: Why do you think societies should allow billionaires to exist? How does that benefit the common good?

    Jump

  • Absolutely, that's why I said if competent people were in charge. Because then those would be paying taxes. The fact they don't is laws being too weak, non-existent, or poorly enforced.

  • If you agree with this view: Why do you think societies should allow billionaires to exist? How does that benefit the common good?

    Jump

  • If competent people were in charge, you'd benefit greatly from their taxes.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • I don't get what else the person I replied to could have meant, given the comment they replied to.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • I feel like this part of the link above is relevant here:

    Excessive attention and affection does not constitute love bombing if there is no intent or pattern of further abuse.

    The key to understanding how love bombing differs from romantic courtship is to look at what happens next, after two people are officially a couple.

    Surely if you've been happily married for 33 years, what you did back then wasn't actually love bombing, right?