Lemmy doesn't have centralized moderation or administration. You'd have to bring it up with the admins (or mods, if applicable) of the server that it's hosted on.
Otherwise, your only recourse is to inquire with the admins of your server (lemmy.world) to see if they're interested in defederating from that instance due to the kinds of communities they have.
It's interesting. When speaking locally (at least in Canada and I'd wager the US as well), "not being interested in politics" is probably equally likely to mean:
I have unpopular political opinions
I don't want to find out if you have unpopular political opinions
But yeah, when speaking with those from other countries, I can definitely see it meaning "I support what my country is doing that's in opposition to your country.
I hadn't realised how that differing context makes it so much more obviously one way.
I wonder if the people has believed the 5g conspiracy fantasies feel remotely foolish
They don't. In fact, they don't believe they were wrong. They've cherry-picked their array of half-truths and benign or unprovable conspiracy theories and have never reevaluated since. Or they've morphed their beliefs into cheap versions of the nonsense they once took as true.
Even with the covid vaccine conspiracy theories. They were saying that everyone who took the vaccine would die.
To maintain their "rightness", when questioned, they will point to the statistics of the non-zero number of people who did die from taking the vaccine.
When pointed out that the actual number is much closer to 0 than the 100% that they had been saying in 2021 or so, they will argue that there's a coverup or something. Or that they didn't literally mean 100% of people.
Obviously they meant whatever would make them right. Some people can hardly fathom the fact that they believed something to be incorrect.
Wait, I think you've mixed up what my point was about.
Someone said that a bad diet "actually" means something else. One commenter said they were able to outrun a bad diet and someone else said "no that's impossible because that's not what a bad diet means".
They said everyone knows what "bad diet" means because obviously it's impossible to outrun a bad diet. But that's not true, because I didn't know what they meant.
Someone can use nothing but "running" to burn off enough calories to counteract their "bad diet", particularly if weight is their general goal. Will that make them the peak of physical fitness? No. But conversations about running and diet are often focused around weight gain/loss.
So yes, I know what people generally mean by "bad diet", but it's a very broad, general term. That one commenter acted like it has a fixed and specific definition that everybody knows.
There are many things in tech that have stagnated, or become standards that we're stuck with. But we're stuck with them not because nobody can do better, but because replacing them requires convincing the whole world to replace them.
Like email 2.0? You'd need it to be fully compatible with email 1.0, or nobody's switching. And if it is fully compatible, you're probably making compromises on how much it improves over 1.0.
On the other hand, as an end-user, my experience with email is easier than it was 20 years ago. This isn't the technology changing, but email clients making things better and more accessible for the end user.
As to your other point, we don't need "thinking machines" or "electronic telepathy" to consider the feasibility of technology replacing or reducing the need for certain types of jobs. Like I said, 20 years is a long time. Some things stay the same, yes, but many change.
You're absolutely right that technology isn't accelerating as quickly as it used to.
Still, things have changed quite a bit in the last 20 years. Cloud computing, for instance, didn't need much to change in terms of the technical possibilities, or even in terms of the availability of consumer hardware. Groundbreaking changes can still happen without needing the baseline technology to improve.
No, in 20 years no version of any technology currently in use will be replacing human employees or would have the capability of doing so
That's a pretty bold statement when technology advances have replaced or downsized the need for human roles in the past.
The printing press, cars, typewriters, computers, emails and the internet, spreadsheet software and data visualization software, cloud infrastructure...
Think about what technology looked like 20 years ago. Same with the job market. The same jobs are not available to the same extent at the same equivalent rates of pay. There are new jobs that are created, for sure. But saying that technology won't advance in 20 years enough to reduce the need for human employees is short-sighted in my opinion.
...of course, that's assuming that you meant "technology won't be replacing some human employees" and not "all" employees, lol
I put on childhood Christmas movies while wrapping Christmas presents, lol