@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Kalcifer

@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works

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

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. For a complete list of posts, browse on the original instance.

Mothers’ care is central factor in animal, human longevity. In species where offspring survival depends on the longer-term presence of the mother, the species tends to evolve longer lives and a slower ( news.cornell.edu )

The relationship between mother and child may offer clues to the mystery of why humans live longer lives than expected for their size – and shed new light on what it means to be human....

Kalcifer , (edited )
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Hm, perhaps I didn't see it in my cursory glance of the article's text, but is there a distinction made between the physical sex difference of a mother and feminine/maternal traits? What I mean to say is: is the article claiming that a female is important, or that the stereotypical traits of a female are important? If the latter, I would wonder, then, if a masculine presenting female would be negative in the eyes of the study.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

I question the potentially sensationalist title. Why specifically target "Elon Musk"? Would it not be more accurate to pin the responsibility on the entirety of SpaceX? I could certainly be mistaken, but I feel that the decisions made at SpaceX are not only Elon's.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

That's an interesting idea to consider (if I understand you correctly in that you are stating that there should be a central research authority that regulates what companies are allowed to do). Though, I wonder if it's still better to sue for damages after the fact and create regulations to cover the oversight. There's also the issue of data — you can't exactly study an issue before it exists. If you are instead inferring that a company should conduct this sort of safety research themselves, it creates a sort of prisoner's dilemma: companies wouldn't be to keen on sharing their research with others, and if they are forced to, a company wouldn't want to be the one to waste the money on it for others to profit off of.

I'd also like to note that this sort of regulation has no business being the decision of a single country, but, instead, it should be the decision of a global government, as it is an issue that affects the whole planet. How such a global government should be structured, though, I am not yet certain. The UN doesn't exactly cut it.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Best be hoping Tesla collapses

Why?

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Natural Gas rockets? What a small step for man, massive step back for mankind.

Why do you dislike methane as a fuel? Also, in case you were unaware, as a side note, SpaceX's newest rocket, which is currently under active development, Starship and Super Heavy, uses methane as a fuel.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Those micrometeors aren’t mostly aluminium.

Do you have a source for that? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but I've found a number of sources that show that meteorites contain aluminum:

To be fair, I don't think any of those claim that any meteorites are "mostly" aluminum. But is that a true requirement?

Kalcifer , (edited )
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

they are finding elements that don’t even occur in nature

Neither of your referenced quotes claimed that the elemental makeup of the measured particulate was synthetic. If you are referring to "Niobium and hafnium do not occur as free elements in nature", what this means is that the elements are not ever found on their own — they have only ever been found bonded to something else. Niobium makes up 0.0017% of Earth's crust and Hafnium makes up 0.00033% [source (archive)].

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Meteors are leftovers of the same primordial stuff that made up earth, so a cross sample of them would largely share the same ratios as earth, minus the volatiles.

Logic would dictate that that is likely, though that statement itself isn't scientific. Do you have any sources to back that up? I could see a possibility where, perhaps, certain elements are more likely to coalesce into planetary bodies, and others into meteoroids. It could also depend on the location in the solar system where the formation occurred — the primordial dust cloud that made up the infant solar system, I would wager, would be far from uniform.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Hm, while the presence of the elements in question in the atmosphere could be naturally occurring, what's important to consider for this discussion is the rate of their increase. If there's an increase in the problematic particulate in the atmosphere that correlates with an increase in the atmospheric burn up of artificial satellites with no related increase in the rate of meteors, then its likely that the artificial satellites were indeed the culprit.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Meteorites do contain aluminum. The issue is with the concentration of aluminum in the atmosphere, as well as its rate of increase. If there's an increase in the atmospheric burn up of artificial satellites accompanied by an increase in the problematic particulate in the atmosphere, then it's certainly fair to consider that the two are correlated. This is especially so if there is no increase in the burn up of objects from any natural source — eg meteors.

Kalcifer , (edited )
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

We have better rocket fuels which degrade into water vapors.

Which fuels are those? Also why would one want their rocket fuel to degrade? I can see fuel storage issues with that. Furthermore, keep in mind that the reaction of CH4 and O2 (combustion) creates H2O (water) and CO2. The only fuel that I'm aware of that creates only water when it's combusted in O2 is H2 (hydrogen). An issue with hydrogen as a fuel, when compared with methane, is its mass ­— lower exhaust mass lowers the specific impulse.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

What? You didn't answer any of my questions, nor did you comment on any of my side notes.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Your questions were shit

Would you mind elaborating?

natural gas rockets are [...] harmful to us all.

Why? Do you have a source for that? Why would natural gas be particularly worse than any other fuel?

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

One thing that's important to be aware of is that some regions have laws that prohibit the collection of rainwater. So be sure to check the laws that apply to your region.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

I'm not sure if they count as underrated, but the band that immediately comes to mind is The Dear Hunter.

Kalcifer , (edited )
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

"The View From Halfway Down" by Alison Tifel has always resonated with me:

The weak breeze whispers nothing
The water screams sublime
His feet shift, teeter-totter
Deep breath, stand back, it’s time

Toes untouch the overpass
Soon he’s water bound
Eyes locked shut but peek to see
The view from halfway down

A little wind, a summer sun
A river rich and regal
A flood of fond endorphins
Brings a calm that knows no equal

You’re flying now
You see things much more clear than from the ground
It’s all okay, it would be
Were you not now halfway down

Thrash to break from gravity
What now could slow the drop
All I’d give for toes to touch
The safety back at top

But this is it, the deed is done
Silence drowns the sound
Before I leaped I should’ve seen
The view from halfway down

I really should’ve thought about
The view from halfway down
I wish I could’ve known about
The view from halfway down

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Yeah, Alison Tifel wrote the episode "The View From Halfway Down", which is what this poem is from and shares the same name with.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Local Only Communities

Local communities are an interesting concept, though I am concerned about unintended side effects. I have noticed many times that people from other instances chime in to meta-communities to provide some alternative viewpoints and context when instances are discussing interactions with the rest of the network. I worry that some will become too isolated/sheltered. But I suppose, in the end, that's ultimately up to the individual instances to decide.

Lemmy can now federate with Wordpress, Discourse and NodeBB.

Increased federation capabilities is always awesome to see!

In order to improve interoperability with Mastodon and other microblogging platforms, Lemmy now automatically includes a hashtag with new posts. The hashtag is based on the community name, so posts to /c/lemmy will automatically have the hashtag #lemmy. This makes Lemmy posts much easier to discover.

This is a clever solution. I think this is a good way to go about it.

RSS feeds now include post thumbnail and embedded images.Security

I really appreciate the continued attention given to keep RSS alive.

A security audit was recently performed on Lemmy.

Awesome! And congrats!

  • Added Community local_subscribers count
  • Support for custom post thumbnail
  • Indicate to user when they are banned from community
  • Added alt_text for image posts

Great features for improving the polish and user experience on Lemmy!

Kalcifer , (edited )
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

I don't believe that defederation is necessary nor wise. The complaints about Lemmy.ml that I've seen have generally revolved around how they moderate their instance and how communities they host are moderated. If one doesn't like how they moderate their communities, then one should be the change that they wish to see — start a replacement community, nurture it, and try to make it better than what was seen on lemmy.ml. This is the beauty of the fediverse — you aren't forced to utilize anything on any other instance. And if one really dislikes seeing lemmy.ml users, then they can even block the instance themself. Lemmy.ml provides a steady, and considerable amount of traffic and content to the Lemmyverse. While that isn't an argument for continuing to use their communities, it is an argument for why it would be unwise to fragment the network by defederating from them.

The only time that an instance should consider defederating from another, imo, is if it finds that users from other instances are violating the local rules at a rate higher than what is possible, or economically viable to handle via administrative action. It shouldn't be a simple matter of passive difference in opinion.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

I'm confused about what this picture is trying to say. What do the 2nd, 3rd and 4th tiers from the top — rule by royalty(?), indoctrination by the clergy, oppression by the military — have to do with capitalism?

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

None of that has anything to do with capitalism, though. You're just pointing out the negatives of tyranny, which, arguably, capitalism doesn't necessitate.

Kalcifer , (edited )
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Your apparent antagonism towards the lead Lemmy developer is sensationalist and non-constructive. If you dislike their moderation then the solution is simple: leave their instances and communities. If your user does not reside on their instances then its admins cannot silence you. If you do not participate in their communities, then their moderators cannot silence you. If you do not wish to see their users then block their instances (though, I would still advise against this). Your argument is founded upon the premise that you don't like their opinions, so just don't listen. Don't taint the Lemmyverse's image with your false alarmism. Be the change that you wish to see. Start an instance with administrative rules that you think are better. Start a community with moderation rules that you think are better. If one finds that they are needing to resort to ad-homenim to gather support, then I would advise one to critically analyze their position and arguments.

EDIT (2024-06-07T19:25Z): From your other comments in this thread I see that you are advocating for the creation of new communities and for people to individually distance themselves from lemmy.ml, rather than defederation. I agree with this. I still disagree, however, with the approach and tone that you used in your post. I think the same end can and should be achieved without ad-homenim attacks.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

it's run by "Marxists"

Lemmy isn't run by any one entity. Lemmy is essentially just the protocol that the Lemmyverse is built off of, which itself is an extension of ActivityPub.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

If anything Lemmy is closer to a classic capitalist structure with the communities being owned by the admin (boss).

Personally, I like to think of instances as countries, where federation and defederation is akin to trade policies across the borders, and communities are like regional/state governments.

Kalcifer , (edited )
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

I have Lemmy.ml blocked and I still see them in other communities all the time.

If that's the case, then that may be a bug. I advise you to report that.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

the devs have absolutely no say over how the software being used

According to some recent posts, ML admins (and maybe even mods?) have the ability to erase any record of mod actions, for example disappearing critique of the CCP's brutal actions in Tiananmen Square that were posted on ML. That left no record in the public mod logs, and the users were never informed that their contributions had been (completely) deleted.

That isn't an example of them having a say over how people use the software. That's them using their own property as they wish.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

There is no issue with either. I fully support civil criticism and discussion. And I also support users moving to a place where they feel a better sense of community. I think it's wrong to force people to interact with those that they don't wish to. This is why the fediverse exists — to remove centralized control over the discourse.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Lemmy needs proper polls.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Reminds me of r/dontdeadopeninside.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

FreshRSS supports HTTP authentication, and there's an open issue for adding OAuth support.

Kalcifer , (edited )
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Without it being open source and not providing reproducible builds, the privacy claims are borderline weightless.

When responding to a comment with multiple points, should one create a new thread (new comment) for each point, or should one make a single large comment containing individual responses to all points?

I encounter situations like this rather often where I am responding to a comment that contains many individual points/statements. I typically will respond with a single comment that contains a quote of each point that is being responded to with my response under neath the respective quote — and, sometimes, for added clarity, a...

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

I've unfortunately seen that behavior here on Lemmy as well.

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Making multiple replies to the same thing is considered rude and spammy.

I'm just wondering if it's a practice/belief that should be continued. Perhaps multiple replies is actually a better way to do it, regardless of how it is currently interpreted.

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

If the conversation is at the point where you are replying to replies, and you’ve sent me three rebuttals with each of them asking for clarification or verification from me, I’m now sending 3-6 replies back, which may require you to send 12 or more.

You are right that the amount of comments would grow rather quickly (exponentially, I think), but the threads, themselves, should be easier to follow — there wouldn't be multiple conversations happening within each comment.

I’d lose track of who said what and would end up referencing something from a conversation with someone else.

How come? The comments are all visually tied together in the thread hierarchy (well, assuming that one isn't reading Lemmy content from Mastodon, or with the Chat mode in the Lemmy UI)

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

It just clutters things up

How so? Are you just referring to the sheer number of comments as being clutter? I would argue that it's cleaner as there is less of a need of large comments and extensive utilization of quotes. Ideally, one comment would receive one direct reply without any extra formatting.

It [...] makes referencing the points and counter-points later more difficult if they’re all spread out in multiple replies instead of just 1.

How so? Everything is still contained in a threaded hierarchy (assuming that one isn't using something like Mastodon, or Lemmy-UI's Chat feature in the comment section). If the comments are contained within scope/context, relevant information to the thread shouldn't be spread out. The relevant information should be contained within the path of the n-ary tree.

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

It is rare for any signle point in an opinion to stand on its own as an atomic unit.

But if it does, wouldn't it be better for it to be its own comment?

A reader would need to jump through a thread to follow your line of reasoning in its entirety.

But isn't that what already happens? The only specific relevant difference is that, currently each comment in the thread could contain any number of individual arguments happening simultaneously.

it is the mutual reinforcement of several points in agreement with each other that will educate or convince someone.

This is a fair point — I hadn't considered this.

Kalcifer OP ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

I generally try and pick few of the strongest points and reply to those.

This is one possibility, but it's quite flawed, as you end up losing portions of the conversation.

It’s impossible to debate someone who replies back as you demonstrated above.

It may require more effort, but it's far from impossible. And that's precisely the reason why I outlined the second alternative that has atomic comments.

Kalcifer , (edited )
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Progressivism isn't mutually exclusive with liberals nor tankies. A progressive is simply someone who advocates for change. Likewise, a conservative is someone who advocates for stasis.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Dismissing an argument for lack of substantive foundation is absolutely an argument for why it is unsound.

Sure, the argument could be unsound, but do note that that doesn't necessitate that the conclusion is also false. That would effectively be an argument from fallacy. Also that isn't exactly what I was trying to say — I was talking about how some people avoid engaging with certain classes of people because they don't think that their arguments are worthy — e.g. flat earthers.

Unfortunately the vast, vast majority of people I have encountered in this vein have had this problem with doubling down when presented with evidence contrary to their belief.

This is indeed an issue. I'm not entirely sure what its cause is. Perhaps it's fear of ridicule, or ostracization? I think the best grassroots method to fix it would be teaching and advocating for proper critical thinking skills.

People living with those kind of delusions, that evidence proving their point wrong doesn’t at least warrant a second look, cannot be reasoned with.

Dealing with irrationality is a tricky thing. How does one reason with someone who is unreasonable? I personally don't think abandoning them is the best solution, but, that being said, I also don't have an alternative.

Kalcifer , (edited )
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

most people in conversation about US politics don’t use liberal that way. The word has evolved from the meaning you prescribe to it.

Hm — it feels like more of an uneducated misappropriation than an evolution of the term. Funnily enough, when the "right wing" types use it with a negative connotation, it really doesn't paint them in a good light — they are speaking negatively of things that they posture themselves as being in support of.

If someone (consciously or unconsciously) decides they will peg their beliefs on the center of the Overton Window that is fundamentally a different thing than taking a set of ethics, morals, and policy knowledge and building a political perspective from the ground up.

Sure, I agree. Keep in mind that the latter can still place one in the Overton Window, though.

Centrists by and large are ideological cowards

Why? They just have beliefs that put them in the center of the left/right dichotomy. Is one a coward for not being polarized? This point is almost moot, though — centrism is rather nebulous and ephemeral.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

The relationship between libertarianism and taxes is rather complex, imo. The main issue with taxes that a libertarian would have typically revolves around the interpretation of the NAP. It could be argued that the enforcement of taxes is an aggression that has not been consented to, so, since a libertarian is more in favor of negative liberties, they would take the position that they want freedom from being compelled to pay them. Do note that, like many things, there is a spectrum of this belief — not all libertarians completely oppose taxes. Many libertarians recognize that some amount of taxation is necessary for a properly functioning society. What is essentially universal among libertarians, however, is the minimization of taxes.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

The distinction between positive and negative liberties is, indeed, a rather blurry one, but there is generally a difference in mindset between the two. That being said, libertarianism seeks to minimize the size and influence of the government, but they don't seek to abolish it — those that seek to abolish it are anarchists (I'm not sure if I am reading your comment correctly, but it seems that you are advocating for anarchism rather than libertarianism when you said "freedom from a governing authority"). It's important to note that negative liberty is a concept that distinguishes a certain class of liberties — it doesn't require the presence of a government.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Government roads don’t force users to do anything but rather empower citizens.

Another argument for why government roads are ethical is because they fight off monopolization — property ownership is at high risk for monopolization. I'm not sure if the Georgist idea of taxing the land value that a private road would be on is enough.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

I think we seem to have different understandings of what “libertarian” means.

From my experience, it certainly feels common that people tend to have different definitions and/or misunderstandings of libertarianism.

I think that libertarian is simply the opposite of authoritarian

I take issue with the usage of the word "simply" — I advise against such types of reductionism. That being said, the comparison gets kind of tricky when one considers the different variants/offshoots of libertarianism, or other freedom/liberty oriented political philosophies. It's tempting to try and reduce political philosophies to a point on a 2D plane, like the political compass, or, worse, a 1D line, like the left/right dichotomy, but it's often quite a bit more complex — thinking in terms of absolute "opposites" can lead one down the wrong path. That being said, without being overly pedantic, libertarianism can be thought of as in opposition to authoritarianism.

little to do with taxes or other economic stuff.

While it may be possible that a definition of libertarianism doesn't directly reference economic topics, they still arise as a dependency or result. Economics and politics are often tightly intertwined.

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

What is your argument to support this statement?

You got it wrong. What's your empirical evidence to support your statement?

I don't really understand this. You claimed that it is impossible. Saying something is impossible is different than saying that it hasn't happened. To claim that something is impossible is a final statement where certain rules can never be satisfied. As such, you certainly can provide an argument for your claim. That being said, my counterargument would be a simple example: Person 1 wants an apple, and Person 2 wants money. Person 1 and Person 2 agree that 1$ is a fair price for an apple. Person 2 gives the apple to Person 1 in exchange for Person 1 giving 1$ to Person 2. Person 1 is happy because they have an apple, which they wanted, and Person 2 is happier because they received money, which they wanted. The net satisfaction is greater than zero — both sides received something that they wanted.

If the current system is intended to be capitalist, then it is not working as intended, as was described above.

Not at all. This is capitalism.

I can use one simple example to counter that: If one can find an example of a monopoly then the market in which that monopoly exists is not capitalist — one example to prove that point is private utilities.

Kalcifer , (edited )
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

That not how science works. You don’t get to posit a theory without falsification and declare it as true until someone else comes up with a falsification for it and tests it.

You have no evidence you just have wild theories based on “perfectly spherical cows in a vacuum” .

Did you not read my previous message? Or did you, perhaps, misinterpret it? My original thesis was "under capitalism, a properly regulated, and competitive free market is not zero sum.", which you claimed was impossible. I then provided a simple example for why it was not impossible. You seem to perhaps take issue with the example's idealistic nature, but the original thesis was idealistic, so I'm not sure why there would be an issue with that. This is purely a conceptual discussion — my statement wasn't making a claim about how effective regulation is at ensuring adequate competition. So I'm not really sure where the issue lies.

And monopolies don’t prove the non existence of Capitalism. They’re it’s natural end result.

Monopolies appear to be the natural end result of a true free market — that is, a market with no regulation. Capitalism simply describes a competitive market. To that end, note that a monopolistic market — ie an anticompetitive market — is, by definition, not capitalist. In practice, to ensure fair competition, a central governing body is required.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •