ExFed

If they could read the Bible, they’d be upset.

Yup. They would be.

Hard disagree. This is a problem every web service has had to deal with since the beginning of the web: what happens when a host (either the machine or the person) stops working? How do you keep the service up?

Centralized services solve that problem with internally funded, transparent redundancy. Federation solves the problem with externally funded, highly-visible redundancy. They’re still the same solution, just a different way of going about it.

You could argue that user identity is lost due to the discontinuity between instances, but that’s probably something the Lemmy devs could fix without too much hassle.

Looking at their comments here, I don’t think OP is interested in playing by the community rules.

Propaganda is insidious.

Suggest reporting post for breaking community rules:

Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda will be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating will be removed.

Well, yea, that’s the problem. I shouldn’t have to “learn” a UI, things should be apparent and obvious.

Counterpoint: vim is very well liked for it’s UI, but there’s a very steep learning curve.

To your point, though, the learning process ideally ought to be seamless and linear; each new thing you can do with the application should be mostly obvious given what you already know about the UI, not force you to learn everything from scratch or do work to learn it (unless you’re into that kind of thing). I don’t think Discord is the worst offender of this rule, but they could make it better.

Care to elaborate?

Ahh, okay, so nothing new under the sun: Hipsters hate normies and September never ended.

Although I’m under the impression that Mint and Pop have taken a bite out of the “beginner desktop” market, Ubuntu is most of what I observe in the office when everybody else is booting Windows.

I can understand selecting for novelty; I’m usually in that camp. But novelty shouldn’t come at the expense of an argument to IT departments that they should support at least one Linux distro.

For those of us still naive … Why does Lemmy say “Ubuntu bad” now?

Maybe it’s a sign we need less dependency on oil…

Neat article. It’s a bummer pumped hydro doesn’t get the love I think it deserves. Hopefully it gets a bit more soon.

But now I have a new pet peeve: when an author defines initialisms that are never used more than once outside of their definition.

Agreed; that’s the challenge. I don’t have a full answer, but I do know that it involves having something to work towards, not just something to fight against.

How can a group of people give that to other people, when you don’t mean equal rights?

Because the point of the post is mental health, not the merits of egalitarianism. I just wanted to point out that, for the gross majority of human history, men’s muscles and reproductive expendability were uniquely valuable traits. With automation and intellectual pursuits, those traits aren’t quite so necessary.

Or am I misunderstanding?

There’s more to how people express or feel value. For example, these are some virtues people seem to value: honor, respect, trust, accomplishment, pride, duty, loyalty.

Money is just one way an employer can convey value to their employees or a customer coveys value to a business. It may come as a shock, but outside of those relationships, money isn’t actually all that valuable.

Imagine someone being your friend just because you give them money… That’s what I mean.

Didn’t mention the state, but it’s also relevant…

A group of people (e.g. organization, community, society, corporation, government, etc.) is capable of collectively attributing value. People need to feel valued. Therefore a group of people is capable of fulfilling people’s need to feel valued.

I’m not proposing a mandate, just a practical accounting.

Well said. We all spend a lot of time criticizing, and not enough time building up. Here are a few more (rather heavily paraphrased) ways to be a good person that I feel strongly about:

Admire people who recognize their insufficiency, mourn, show humility, seek justice, are merciful, have a pure heart, work for peace, or are oppressed for doing the right thing.

Understand you’re incapable of perfection, and so is everybody else.

If you’re angry with someone, call them an idiot, or curse them, beware of the consequences.

Settle conflict with others quickly before it escalates.

Be faithful to all your vows in both thought and action.

Resist the urge for vengeance; flip the script by going above and beyond for those who take advantage of you.

Give to those who ask for help or want to borrow what you have.

Stand out from the crowd by showing kindness and compassion to those who hate you.

Agreed. However, something has to be said for the fact that a lot of American society and economy has shifted value away from “dangerous” or otherwise physically demanding labor (e.g. coal mining, farm field work before automation) towards jobs that don’t depend on how much muscle mass you have or other expressions of sex hormones. That value system was encoded into cultural norms and media, which, without the corresponding environment, just became a caricature.

The problem of focusing too much on the culture is that we miss what shaped it in the first place: a need to feel valued. If men aren’t valued for their physique (or, to be frank, their biological expendability), then what’s their value? The Left was too afraid of ruining their Feminist credibility to offer any serious solutions. Meanwhile, the Right leaned in to that caricature, and offered a solution full of misogyny and arrogance. When presented a choice between an awful solution and no solution, it’s no wonder so many men fell prey to toxicity.

We need more non-toxic masculinity.

Fair enough, political definitions are rarely well-defined.

I guess people often use it to mean the more internet-savvy, meme-posting, trolling right wing.

Yeah, that’s how I understood it… Not really something Eich seems to do much.

I’m not sure why anybod would think it’s not connected.

Just because Eich has awful views doesn’t give license to also be awful by throwing around random other accusations or connecting him with trolling skinheads. Remember, even the Nuremberg Trials had defense attorneys, so let’s stick to the high road of justice, not the shitty cesspool that the far right wants to drag us into.

Please, go back and carefully read what I wrote. I’ve said nothing about whether I find Eich’s donation morally acceptable or not, let alone anything beyond that. You seem quick to condemn on nothing more than circumstance. The far-left is just as illiberal, regressive, and unjust as the far-right.

Beware of groupthink. It makes for smooth brains.

Congrats! You’ve made a formal fallacy while sounding antagonistically patronizing!

In my experience, anybody who claims morality is “clear cut” is probably naive, otherwise they’re selling a cult. The fact that you think my line is questioning is suspicious without knowing anything about me or anything beyond this thread makes me suspect it’s the latter, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.

Yes, it’s a philosophical debate. That’s why I’m here, on the Internet, asking philosophical questions, to spur debate.