Schadrach

You aren’t wrong. It’s entirely about status and needing to stigmatize, penalize and limit “fake” art because the artists in question are worried it will cut into the work available to them in the form of things like commissions.

…and let’s be fair, it’s an ad so the corpo bullshit is mandatory.

I’d rather them think on it and actually articulate a position, but that’s a high bar to ask for.

There’s a few variations, but the one I’m most familiar with is like go fish, except you don’t have to be honest if you have the card someone else asks for.

The version of this I’m used to involved starting at 2 and counting up, and having to claim and play some number of that card whether you have it or not. If another player thinks it’s a bluff they call you out and if you were bluffing you have to take the discard pile, otherwise they have to take the discard pile. First player out of cards wins. So first player has to play 2s, second player has to play 3s, etc.

I’ve played versions done with trivia, though where you have to determine if the answer given is real or bullshit (which would be more likely to turn into a game show).

That’s basically what the game show is - a few different games that are each a variation on a quiz show in which the expectation is that players can lie and other players have to call them out on it. Catching a lie benefits the accuser and penalizes the liar, false accusations penalize the accuser.

Often it results in more people posting low quality replies consisting of nothing more than “you’re an idiot” because they cannot just downvote to indicate that.

…they presumably also cannot articulate their disagreement in any more naunced way than that, either.

At the very least it’s much better than it used to be. So long as you’re running hardware that won’t make you jump through hoops to get working, and that’s less common and less awful than it used to be.

That’s literally most of world history.

Oh, boy. Back to the old Reddit patterns. How long before they start using bots to preemptively ban anyone who has ever posted on certain communities regardless of context as a time saving measure, because that was a thing on Reddit as well?

Any idea which subs are banning like that already?

and suggestions that ‘any instance is fine’, although true in a technical sense - is a little misleading

I’d say more than a little. I always suggest they look at the instance rules and also who the instance blocks to make sure they’re OK following those rules and being blocked from that content before picking. Part of why I picked SDF was that they block no other servers.

I think the blurring of the lines between developers of the Lemmy open source project, and admins of the lemmy.ml instance is a self-sabotaging and tone-deaf reflection on the site, and hurts chances of wider adoption.

Why? They explicitly haven’t baked any of their moderation/administration preferences into the code and have rejected suggestions that they should bake things along those lines into the code. If they decide to, that sounds like an awfully good reason for a fork. You don’t have to love the devs and their politics to use the software they developed, though you should probably be on board if you want to use the instance that they run.

I don’t know how to best deal with such indoctrination chambers. Their members become completely divorced from reality and there’s no way to pull them back from the brink because anything you could say to that effect gets moderator-deleted. Yet vice versa, they can freely spread their propaganda and engage in “raids” on other instances.

This is essentially the same problem Reddit has (mods/admins can control what is discussed on their boards), stems from the same place (mods/admins have essentially unlimited power over their boards/instances), and has the same basic solution - let the echo chamber echo chamber and create alternative communities that don’t have that problem. And on the upside, since this is a federated space you can just have whatever@otherserver.net instead of r/truewhatever7alpha.

It’s just more noticeable here because the censorious leftward fringe is both more extreme and more aggressive about it.

At least we haven’t started getting mods running bots to auto-ban anyone who has ever interacted with other specific communities yet.

Really no different than Reddit in that regard. At least we don’t have people automatically banning you for having ever interacted with specific other communities yet, at least I don’t think we do yet.

EDIT: Shit, somehow I forgot the don’t. Teach me not to proofread.

The problem is that even a Constitutional Convention gives more power to land than people.

Specifically in the case of a Constitutional Convention 2/3 of states have to agree to have one and 3/4 of states have to agree to any changes.

You’d have an easier time convincing the federal government to condense a few states - we don’t really need TWO Dakotas, and Montoming seems like a good idea. Maybe also split California into a few pieces. The whole “land over people” thing is only really a problem because a couple of states blow the curve - House apportionment is done in a fashion that mathematically minimizes the average difference in people/representative between states while having a fixed number of representatives, but California blows the curve by being so utterly massive compared to any other state and there just not being enough representatives to go around. So all but a few states are pretty close in terms of people/representative, a couple are sitting at the 1 representative minimum while being tiny, and California blows the curve on the other side.

Either increase the House size, merge some of the smallest states, split California up or all of the above - and all of those can be done without passing an amendment.

Of course, then Texas will invoke the clause in the Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States and split itself into five states, each of which gets its own Senators and whatever number of Representatives the math would work out to.

No, parties and primaries (which are just parties borrowing election infrastructure to choose who they support) aren’t in the Constitution at all. But first past the post voting always trends towards two party systems as a stable equilibrium.

Even the founding fathers anticipated a lot of reforms and for the whole thing to become obsolete quite soon

…which is why they built a mechanism into it to make alterations. But the people upset about things like the electoral college don’t have the support necessary to use that mechanism.

They don’t need to die - you could just blind them essentially the same way.

H1B skilled worker visas. You have to prove that you tried to hire locally and couldn’t find anyone qualified. The whole point is that the qualifications are impossible, so you are either under qualified or lying. Since no qualified candidate exists, you can bring someone over from overseas and hold the risk of being deported if you fire them over their heads - and you suddenly get less thorough about checking qualifications for your immigrant candidates.

True. But that just falls back on the “not yet” part of things. They’re likely sitting on a massively valuable pile of user data and when they get greedy enough it’s going to be ugly.

They see everything because they have to for some of the services they offer which gives them a huge potential to do terrible things that they have not actually pursued yet to date, hence the “so far” in my comment.

What’s the problem with CloudFlare?

So far, not much other than being “too” content neutral for a lot of people. They have potential to be immensely horrible whenever they decide to engage in enshittification to maximize profits.

Doubt it. I mean, any self driving car is going to make the driver agree to responsibility for what the car does and ensure the user has a manual override available just in case.

No company is going to ship fully autonomous driving software (for example to have fully autonomous driverless taxis) without contractually making the fleet owner responsible for their fleet cars.