Ah yes, eugenics, famously a position that has proven helpful in the past. /s

If it was “mean” or “average” then sure, median not so much

It kinda makes a lot of sense I feel that they’d fit together. You have a form of transportation that is dangerous enough that requiring government licensing is generally agreed to be desirable, meaning that if its the primary option, a government can effectively take away a person’s ability to participate in public life or make a living, and easily justify it on safety grounds. Cars are expensive, so a government can both funnel money to its partners in private industry by promoting them, and subsidize them for the populations it considers “desirable” as a means to seem like it has created abundance and luxury (see how how the VW bug came to be for example). And, a society built around cars is one that tends towards physical separation and isolation between people (because of space inefficient infrastructure and relatively quick travel outside of densely built areas), which promotes distrust of others. Thats not to say that cars are inherently fascist or that most people that promote them do so to benefit that sort of ideology, but that if I was some kind of fascist dictator seeking to control a population, Id probably want to push them into buying and relying on cars.

Aesthetics wise, I used to think it kind of looked cool… when it was just a computer rendering with no exposure to conditions of the real world. In person all the flat and shiny but not like mirror-like surfaces mean that even the tiniest warp and defect is visible when the sun shines on it. Someone in my area has one ive seen a few times painted a somewhat matte black, which makes it even worse in that Ive been able to see fingerprints on it from across the street, and from a distance the colors of the windows and body blend together to look like some kind of featureless black monolith.

and apparently makes your eyesight worse on top of that

I feel like this makes sense for very politically focused spaces, especially for less “mainstream” ideas like db0’s anarchist communities, just cause not every community will allow arguments about their stance, and even ones that do will see more arguments turn into flame wars and incivility than communities for which there simply isnt as much for heated arguments to start over, especially when the arguments arent always something “new” to that space and might just be someone from outside noticing and saying “your ideology is bad because [insert reason that community has probably heard enough before to be tired of]”.

Am a bit curious about why pawb is so high though, Ive not really noticed much of the hate that furries sometimes would get on other platforms (I guess it could be because theyre all banned but I doubt it, because that wouldnt hide it from communities outside of pawb). The instance administration has always felt rather reasonable whenever Ive seen like instance announcements or defederation decisions or such too, at least by my standards. Itd be interesting maybe to see what communities these bans tend to come from and what reasons are given, just looking through the modlog doesnt seem to help much there given that it doesnt seem to let one sort by instance.

I feel like that would really skew the data, because it would then just be “instances that defederate some big instances (or just ones that defederate .world) and others that dont”, It’d be hard to ban a major instances worth of users with even a heavy handed “normal” moderation strategy surely?

We’ve been gene editing crops a long time, it’s not proven itself especially harmful beyond the specific ones engineered to resist herbicides allowing greater use of those things, which this doesn’t sound like a case of. Food crops are very divergent from wild ancestral plants regardless of the method used to achieve that, if you’re finding farm-type wheat out in the wild that probably indicates an ecological problem regardless of if they’ve been gene edited or not.

Is it a practical example for dealing with a country that is (or at least makes it an open secret that it very probably is) nuclear armed though?

German “denazification” first required complete military defeat and occupation of the German state, that’s not really practical to achieve when the country to be occupied has the option to devastate whatever country it’s fighting as a deterrent/revenge once it concludes defeat is inevitable. As such, what is needed here I think is examples of how to defuse such a situation and push a population away from violence purely through limited conflict, economic pressure, sponsorship of internal dissent, etc

Hiding the score doesn’t stop people from disagreeing with you or from vote count affecting sorting. It does help a bit, at least for me, if you’ve found yourself habitually checking your comment vote scores in a mentally unhealthy search for validation, and wish to train yourself out of that habit by making those checks futile. On a place with no overarching control like lemmy, vote counts are probably too easy to manipulate to provide trustworthy feedback anyway.

Lowering the amount of people wouldn’t help such a thing, because demand for stuff and therefore number of potential jobs in an economy is at least partially a function of the number of people. If you reduce the population, you also reduce the number of needed employees, leaving you right back where you started.

Maybe Im not saying this right: Im wasnt arguing for the virtues of echo chambers with that, Im saying, with how fedi is designed, there is no means to prevent someone that wants to make an echo chamber from doing so, so suggesting that one should not allow an echo chamber to exist is a fool’s errand. In a more general sense, it seems to me that, either you let people decide what kind of content to see, in which case many if not most will naturally create echo chambers simply because they dont want to see views too different from their own, or you have some means to force people to see stuff they dont want to, which requires some difficult-to-escape authority have power over their media feed and as such is incompatible with decentralized federation (and of course risks that authority pushing everyone into their echo chamber). Both of those things lead to serious issues in my view, so its a bit of a “pick your poison” situation when it comes to social media design. Beyond that though, it does have to be acknowledged that there is simply more content, more messages and people wanting to spread their word, out there than any given person has the time or attention or mental capacity to process. That means that some system must exist that determines what fraction of it all you actually see (even if its just as simple as “the things most recently posted on a given platform when you looked at it”). I can see no way to do this that doesnt introduce biases.

I mean, allowing echo chambers doesnt really seem avoidable on fedi tho? Like, only one side has to defederate to break two way communication, so if someone wants to avoid you, you cant really stop them, and the whole concept of moderation in a decentralized system relies on each instance being able to selectively view or block content from other instances based on the values of that instance. You cant really say “what works is challenging people” if the people you want to challenge have an “ignore” button for when you get too loud for their taste.

I mean, if were talking about efficiency tools for artists to use rather than straight up automatically generating the assets (not sure what those tools would be at the moment, but I’ve not been following what the AI industry actually releases for awhile because it’s always seemed a bit useless), then the result should be an increase in the output of those artists rather than replacing them with statistical amalgam.

Elon took this literally.

I long for days when tech CEOs weren’t so vocally obsessed with space, such that taking about space development could lead to interesting discussion of what a realistic timeframe actually is and what progress can be made, rather than just an assumption that one is a Musk or Bezos fanboy that actually believes we can do the work of centuries in 20 years somehow by giving the people that aready have too much money, even more money.

What’s the dark twist that these usually have? That they’ve accidentally introduced a foreign spider that will become an invasive species? That the ship goes abandoned, implying they were all killed in battle and can’t return to the ship? Or are they all just afraid of spiders and fleeing the ship rather than charging to attack?

At some point, so many different aliens have infiltrated starfleet admiralty that its a wonder that they dont discover eachother’s schemes by accident.

Hmm, that is fair. I would suggest making votes not federate at all in that case, except doing that would make single person or very small instances effectively be limited to sorting by new

thats fair I suppose, though in practice id assume that making a whole bunch of individual instances is probably more difficult than making a much of accounts on one instance that you control, and thus vote manipulation in this manner should have a higher barrier to entry?