Excrubulent

Excrubulent , 3 months ago

It's early days still. When this sort of thing triggers an "exodus" users will just shift to other instances, further decentralising the service without unduly hurting the platform. If big instances want to stay relevant they need to not enshittify. If it turns out that's impossible, then instances will have to stay small, which is fine by me. I certainly won't miss the majority of lemmy.world users.

Excrubulent , 3 months ago

"Just a heads up for when we do this again: we know that it sucks, and we are doing it anyway."

Excrubulent , 3 months ago

The translation is, "It wasn't us don't get angry, but also it kind of was one of us and also we are sticking by the decision so it may as well have been us." I don't really see that it matters if the story is true - in the best possible case they're just saying that they don't have a way of setting policies and having those policies be followed.

If we've learned anything from centralised platforms it's that size doesn't protect platforms from the consequences of making bad decisions.

Excrubulent , 3 months ago

Much as I'd love to jump on the lemmy.world hate with your comment, I find they tend to be bog standard liberals with very little political education, not Trump supporters. Also your comment history is still visible in some apps, and it doesn't tell such a clear cut story as you're telling here.

If you are indeed anti-Trump, it's not clear from what you said there. In fact what you said was such a mess that I don't hold out a lot of hope for your response to this comment. I honestly don't blame them for giving you a time out.

Excrubulent , 3 months ago

It's even easier with account migration now. I haven't tried it myself but apparently you can just sort of continue from where you left off.

Excrubulent , 3 months ago

Are you making fun of my akshent, Blofeld?

Excrubulent , 3 months ago

Doomerism is an attitude that is being pushed by fossil fuel companies to foster apathy so they can keep turning a profit.

Don't help them please.

Excrubulent , 3 months ago

You are helping them by spreading doomerism. I thought that was crystal fucking clear.

Excrubulent , 3 months ago

The planet is correcting an imbalance.

This is doomerism, and I don't believe that you don't understand that.

Excrubulent , 3 months ago

Oh okay, so your doomerism is fine because you have a fancy name for it and you actually want it to happen?

How fucking gullible do you think I must be to say that with a straight face. Wow.

Excrubulent , 3 months ago

Nexusmods is a pretty reputable, long-lived site to my knowledge, and they have an enormous catalogue of mods all maintained by their creators on the site. I don't know why you wouldn't want to make an account there specifically unless you have some aversion to making accounts in general.

Excrubulent , 3 months ago

If he doesn't win election, I want his stans to remember this and understand that he threw it. He, or at least his staff, must know what a historically unpopular policy this is.

The dems clearly aren't as excited about beating Trump as their voters are.

Excrubulent , 3 months ago

Somehow everyone except Israel is lying about what Israel is doing.

Excrubulent , 3 months ago

This is interesting. So sorting is done server-side, I assume this is for performance. In fact now that I think of it, for a client to implement a custom sort it would need to fetch basically every single post for the entire period, across the entire fediverse, which really doesn't sound practical. At that point the client has effectively become its own local server.

So that means sorting algorithms need to be implemented server-wide.

I wonder if this could be done with plugins that servers could experiment with and modify more easily, rather than being baked into full version updates?

Edit: I have read further down, I understand this is not possible.

Excrubulent , 3 months ago

Thinking back to that time on reddit someone showed up in a rally sub with an NFT with a picture of a car they wanted to show off. They'd spent like $1,200 on it, and got absolutely clowned on in the comments. They immediately deleted the post, I don't think it was up for long. They got their bubble popped really fast. I wonder if they ever managed to find a bigger fool.

Excrubulent , 3 months ago

You are defending the mass murder of children.

Excrubulent , 3 months ago

Oh no, did pandering to republicans not make them your friends, Joe? Were you really psyched to be the tough border president? Did you actually think they gave a shit about the issues they use as cudgels in the culture wars? Maybe you should sponsor more genocides, maybe that will finally make them like you.

Who cares about actually doing the right thing, or even the popular thing? It's all about sucking up to the worst bullies in the room, that's the best strategy, apparently. It's not like it matters, anybody who's paying attention already knows who and what you are: the guy whose supporters can only endorse as marginally, strategically better than overt fascists, and the guy who most people will only vote for because they have no other realistic option, and who absolutely nobody who wants a "tough border president" will vote for, because they know it's a team sport.

We all remember how those border agents talk about immigrants, calling them "floaters" and sharing photos of their corpses on facebook. They didn't go anywhere just because the president stopped going on TV calling Mexicans rapists.

Excrubulent , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

So let me get this straight... Biden is slowly moving away from his sponsoring of genocide, which you have acknowledged he is doing, in a moment of unprecedented public pressure against said genocide, and your only real defense of him is that he is marginally, strategically better than the other guy?

It sounds like you agree with what I'm saying because you just restated it, except with the addition that you somehow psychically determined that I am fine with Trump, even though I explicitly said he was an overt fascist and even worse, and that people ought to vote for Biden strategically.

Did you think that was an argument? Or did you just read my comment and think, "Hey, that's describing me! It's my time to shine!"

Excrubulent , 3 months ago

If you don't like defending them, then fucking don't. It doesn't take much to admit that you should probably vote for them, and that's all you really need to do with them. They're not your friends, stop acting like anything they do is good. He is literally boasting about his tough border policy, which by the way has some absolutely horrific ongoing consequences to this day at the border. The gross mistreatment of legal asylum seekers goes on to this day, you just don't hear about it because the republicans don't give a shit and the dems know it would look bad to yell about it when it's their guy in office.

Everything you named has a nice-sounding marketable title, but on closer inspection to just about anything they do I've found it's always bare-minimum perfomative change at the absolute best. It is pure spin.

I do not understand why you would agree that they suck but not want anybody to criticise them. Biden could end military support for Israel tomorrow and basically cinch the election. He won't do it, and maybe that means Trump will win. I don't know why you wouldn't want people to talk about that.

Excrubulent , 3 months ago

Holy shit, you think I'm a bot because obviously this must be russian disinfo right? 54, and 5. Fuck you and your bullshit bubble. Goddamnit you have fucking brainworms.

Calling the other person a bot is the ultimate admission that you have nothing to say. "They". Fucking hell, the "they" is pretty clearly fucking defined, asshole. Stop talking to me.

Excrubulent , 3 months ago

some continued talking to me without responding to the fact that I was asking math questions.

Because it's weird and condescending, and the kind of thing people will just ignore. A bot would try to answer everything and fail. They'll try to solve the reimann hypothesis if you ask.

What these people - and they were almost certainly people - were doing is likely "blanking" you. They noticed an inappropriate social behaviour and ignored it in the hopes that you would get the hint that it was inappropriate without any need for a confrontation.

Frankly I don't have any patience for that. Have you ever asked that question and gotten a wrong answer? That would be a bot. If the answer is no, that's because you haven't found any bots. I answered to prove to you that you're a paranoid weirdo, and also because fuck you.

I'll also note that you ignored me telling you to stop talking to me. Does that make you a bot?

Don't answer, I certainly won't any more.

Excrubulent , 3 months ago

I was going to raise an objection about whether it was "car" tyres because I only saw vehicle tyres in the article, but I found this report:

https://www.lifebluelakes.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Factsheet-microplastics_tyres_Blue-Lakes.pdf

According to this UMSICHT study
(Bertling 2018), an average of around 998 g of these particles are produced per person
and year by car tyres, around 89 g by truck tyres, 15.6 g by bicycle tyres and 228 g by
the abrasion of bitumen in asphalt.

That appears to be a collection of European state funded programs putting out that information, so it's not like they're a think tank or anything. I checked out their sponsors and didn't find any fossil fuel companies at least, and they list their sources.

Anyway, from that German study it sounds like it really is mainly cars. I was surprised at that because heavier vehicles damage road surfaces exponentially more because of their higher contact pressure. I would guess with microplastics the important factor is cumulative surface area in contact with the road, which cars would dominate.

Excrubulent , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

FD Signifier is so good. I've been binging his stuff lately.

The ending of this one stayed with me:

Call it what it is: it's not reform the police; it's not defund the police; it's not abolish the police; it's 🎶 fuck the police comin' straight from the underground 🎶

Excrubulent , 3 months ago

Turns out capitalists are way more concerned about leftists threatening to hurt their businesses than they are about reactionaries threatening to hurt actual people.

So glad they're the people in charge of our whole society.

Excrubulent , 3 months ago

No, this is not the way. Lone sacrificial actors hurting wealthy people wouldn't work - they've got a whole system lined up to keep their generational wealth and power and it is extremely robust and every time you got rid of a billionaire you would get a handful more billionaires popping up where they were. Not only that, it would embolden reaction. You thought the BLM protests caused a violent police reaction? Assassinate one billionaire and just watch what happens. The reactionary machine would go ballistic. Maybe you want that, but that's called accelerationism and it has never once worked to achieve anything good. Similarly the act of lashing out as a lone wolf has a name: revolutionary adventurism. It also doesn't work.

The actual method that can work is prefiguration, building the new society in the shell of the old. We make the world better for ourselves and our neighbours right here and now and we don't wait for permission from conservative and reactionary systems. We make them irrelevant to our projects.

When the CNT-FAI dispossessed the wealthy of their private property, they didn't purge them. They offered them a place in their new society. Many took them up on the offer and admitted it was a good life. That's a much more profound victory than just ganking someone.

Excrubulent , 3 months ago

Thanks, but I'm afraid you've just reinforced to me that I picked an un-shortenable handle. There is no short version that sounds good to me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Excrubulent , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

Well I appreciate that very much.

And unfortunately even if I liked anything close to "X" I'm afraid Elon has put the final nail in that coffin for me.

Excrubulent , 4 months ago

"Awful circumstances".

What were the circumstances? Why would most people fail in those circumstances?

Excrubulent , 4 months ago

"A criminal". Society decides who is a criminal, and decides to let a baby be born in a prison.

You didn't even ask why the woman was in prison in the first place before deciding she was the problem, so you're believing society's branding of her as a criminal. Gee, I wonder if attitudes like that make it harder on someone who was born in prison?

Excrubulent , 4 months ago (edited 4 months ago)

So the fact that the US has the largest prison system in history, with nearly 1% of its entire population imprisoned, and nearly 25% of the entire world's prison population, doesn't make you think that maybe society has some role in deciding how many people get sent to prison? Do you think that the US is just somehow filled with an especially "criminal" class of person?

And going to prison does enormous harm to individuals. You don't know what that woman's life might've been like without prison, without the poverty that prison causes, or without the poverty-to-prison pipeline, without having her daughter forcibly taken away from her.

And of course she's a criminal, but that's a legal status. There isn't some separate lower class of human being that is a "criminal". You seem to be talking as if she is a "criminal" in some other sense of the word.

Excrubulent , 4 months ago (edited 4 months ago)

You've just admitted that there are other factors. Do you think the prison industrial complex plays an insignificant role?

Excrubulent , 4 months ago

Ah, so the context in which your comment occurs is completely irrelevant, just like the context in which a woman was forced to give birth in a prison and then to give up said baby is also, apparently, irrelevant.

Tell me, was there any reason you felt the need to spout this random fact, or did it occur to you to write those words in that order under my comment entirely ex-nihilo?

Excrubulent , 4 months ago

I would say that the people who imprisoned her and forced her to give birth inside a prison and to give up her baby were the ones stripping her of her agency in a much more material manner. It's not wrong to say what's happening.

It's incredible how far you'll go to dance around the issue and not address the fact that the society we live in absolutely creates the situation described above, where it is inevitable that some percentage of people will wind up there.

You're just not interested in acknowledging that that is a problem at all, are you?

Excrubulent , 4 months ago

You’re out here wishfully thinking and making a ton of assumptions based on nothing and I’m saying she was born with half the support structure therefore had more hurdles to jump. Why are we talking about the mother’s crime again?

I'm going to be honest with you, I have no idea what you're even trying to say here. Like... just find the quotes or something and copy them here. This is so vague I just don't even know what you're referring to.

Ironically this is exactly what I said would happen in my first post - someone jumping through hoops to spin this as dystopian

...

the largest prison system in history, with nearly 1% of its entire population imprisoned, and nearly 25% of the entire world’s prison population

How on earth do you spin that as not dystopian? You have to ignore it, right? Because that's what you've done.

Excrubulent , 4 months ago

Your claim does not arise from my comment.

Excrubulent , 4 months ago

I want you to pay attention to the community this is under. "Aboringdystopia".

Dystopia involves society wide problems. The problems with incarceration are why it was posted here.

You claimed it wasn't dystopic, but apparently you don't want to talk about any of the society wide issues that this story highlights. The thing is, if you want to discuss whether this story exposes dystopian aspects of society, you have to talk about those issues. You can't just talk about "mother bad; daughter good", because that isn't the issue being discussed.

I haven't said this woman was good or bad, that was you. You assumed her incarceration wasn't "wrongful", by which I assume you mean it was lawful. The further assumption underneath that is that if it were lawful, it must be justified. You further assumed that because the state has branded her a criminal, that she deserved to be forced to give birth in prison and then give up her baby, or at least that it's not worth considering, even though you know next to nothing about her, and even though it shouldn't matter, because nobody should be forced to give birth in prison and to give up their baby.

And when I tried to point out these assumptions that you were making, you admit that you then assumed I was saying the mother was somehow innocent.

If you assume that the carceral system is right to judge and treat people the way it does, then of course your conclusions won't challenge it.

The fact you are so willing to excuse crimes against humanity just because the most heinous carceral system in history told you the person they were being done to deserved it does not say good things about you, and I suspect that's why you're trying to change the subject.

Excrubulent , 4 months ago

It also incentivises more production, if you believe the supply & demand story.

Excrubulent , 4 months ago

These delivery services are prime candidates for cooperatisation... which after a quick search using quotes to filter out "corporatisation" it turns out is a word that serious people use.

Anyway, the reason for this is that they are minimal services - all you need is an app and the ability to get that app on people's phones - and almost no investment in infrastructure.

It would be so easy - conceptually, I know software is hard - to replace that app with a cooperative based model, and you could leverage open source to make a general platform that could be adjusted to individual coops' needs, and allowing a customer to use a single contact point for any affiliated services. Each coop then wouldn't meed to develop their own app, it would be ready made for them.

It could also use federation to link up groups for discovery and to weed out scummy groups.

Excrubulent , 4 months ago

Yes, it's called a typewriter.

Excrubulent , 4 months ago

In case anyone's unclear about how someone gets to the point that they're blasting their gun into an empty street because an acorn fell on their car, you should learn about How Cops Are Trained to Shoot You in Your Home.

TL;DW: watch it, this is important. But also they are basically traumatised into being jumpy trigger happy motherfuckers by their sociopathic training.

Excrubulent , 4 months ago

I don't know all of the details of this mission, but it seems like they've just lowered the lowest point in its orbit - called periapsis - until it sits low enough in the atmosphere to get enough drag that the orbit slowly decays over a decade.

The lowest part of the orbit would only drop a little bit, but the highest part of the orbit woukd reduce more with each orbit. If you do it slowly enough, the orbit would circularise and then it would begin to decay more evenly. As it falls deeper into the atmosphere the orbit would decay faster and faster until it can no longer sustain orbit, and then it falls deeper into the atmosphere and burns up in just a few minutes.

The reason for this I can only guess at - it wouldn't take a whole lot more fuel to just deorbit all at once. My best guess is that it has something to do with reentering at the lowest possible speed. If you fall from a high orbit and reenter, you have a lot more speed and have to dissipate more energy all at once. It's possible this increases the risk that the satellite will fail to deobrit, and break up and send pieces off in less predictable orbits. If it breaks up from a low circular orbit, there's no chance of any parts escaping back into orbit.

Excrubulent , 4 months ago

They Nintend to do what Nintendon't.

Excrubulent , 4 months ago

Come now, Vivian, don't be like that.

licks arsehole

Excrubulent , 4 months ago

And a polite greeting is pretty simple. I just offer my hand limp and palm down for a sniff. If you get a nuzzle then it's petting time, baby.

Excrubulent , 4 months ago

Huh, I actually didn't know this was a thing, I just noticed that it works.

Excrubulent , 4 months ago

AKA a 1-pounder cannon.

Excrubulent , 4 months ago (edited 4 months ago)

There are differences:

1. Copying data through a protocol that purports to be integrated with the network frames that copying as a part of that network. If it was acquired through a bridge that does not respect federation then it is dishonestly coopting the legitimacy of the fediverse. Screenshots or copy-pastes won't have the same appearance of integration and will be intuitively understood by the reader as being lifted from another context. This happens all the time and we're very familiar with it. If copying data were all this was about, this solution should be sufficient.

2. It brings fediverse users into direct contact with non-federated networks in a way that they have not consented to. The ability to post directly back & forth exposes people to the kinds of discussions that we had previously moderated out of our networks. Defederation is an important tool for limiting the access bad actors have to our discussions, and accepting a situation where we can no longer defederate neuters that tool.

This isn't just about "information wants to be free". This is about keeping the door closed to the bigots, and forcing them to come onto our territory if they want to talk to us, so we can kick them out the moment they show their asses.

EDIT:

Spinning up a new instance then federating with you, then bridging the content from there to the defederated instance.

This is exactly part of the problem with a bridge that doesn't rely on federation. With threads, we could just defederate and forget about it. With a bridge like this, we're playing whackamole with every anonymous instance that bluesky spins up, which they can do easily faster than we can detect them.

If this open source system is told to pack its bags and leave, then yes, they can do it more covertly, but if they do that then they're doing shady shit, and that can be exposed as the shady shit that it is. The point of protesting this is saying that we won't allow this kind of entryism to openly exist on the network.