moonlight

I think learning linux and the terminal is a good place to start. Once you get comfortable doing basic stuff in the terminal, it will be easy to start making bash scripts. From there, something like Python would be a good next step.

This is a meaningless strawman. I don’t see anyone saying things like this.

Well I didn’t make this post so I can’t really speak to the intent behind it.

But I don’t think that’s what this post is doing at all.

It’s “fuck cars” not “fuck people who drive cars”

Obviously the average driver is not responsible for the societal reliance on cars.

I’m quite happy with my instance and I haven’t experienced this myself (that I know of). I just personally would rather encounter something I don’t like than to only be able to see half a conversation.

I guess you’re right that having instance options makes this a non issue though, as we can both have what we want.

I just think a lot of people join instances like world or ml without really understanding this, which is unfortunate.

Please re read the original post and my comments. That’s not what I am saying.

I’m saying that ideally moderation SHOULD be handled by the remote instance that hosts the community, and that the local instance should faithfully reflect it without censoring it.

Yes? I don’t understand what you’re saying.

That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying it would be best if content on remote instances wasn’t censored when viewed on a local instance, even if that user was banned locally.

I think this problem is hard to get around though with how all content has to be hosted locally.

I understand the liability issue, I guess this is just an inherent tradeoff with how the fediverse works.

I at least think there could be a two stage ban, ‘no posting here’ and ‘block everything’.

Also, defederation could still be used for instances that fail to moderate, although I do agree that fully blocking a user is much preferable to the nuclear option.

I think it would be better if bans only applied to posting on an instance, and each instance/community would self moderate. If I go to a post, I want to see the whole discussion, and not have certain people hidden from me by my home instance. Let the instance hosting the community filter out spam.

What does gender have to do with it? Do men not have skin?

You should probably use a moisturizer at least. And spf isn’t a bad idea if you will be outside.

I feel that. I wish I was neurotypical, cis, and mentally well :(

Absolutely, these corporate types are so clueless when it comes to public messaging.

They realized that it’s obvious that they’re the bad guys, and the interview response wasn’t convincing. But then to try to bully the interviewer into deleting it? That just seems stupid.

Examples?

I would say most anticheat works (although some games specifically choose to not allow Linux). It’s just kernel level anticheat that flat out doesn’t work (which is malware anyway)

I’ll assume you’re commenting in good faith.

I actually didn’t claim nurture was more important than nature as a sweeping statement. It clearly isn’t in cases like eye color for example. I haven’t done a deep dive on this, but research seems to show that genetics play a significant role in predicting personality in general, but less than 50%.

Regardless, whether or not people are ‘fundamentally good’ or not is a moral statement, not a quantifiable one, as is “being shitty to other humans”. It’s a different question than personality, which is the closest topic that there seems to be any science on. Is there any specific research that actually makes a claim like this? (also, take a step back and remember what post this is on)

Also as a sidenote, while believing in the good in humanity probably makes someone more likely to be leftist, I don’t think Marxism actually relies on people being ‘fundamentally good’ at all.

I do however take objection when science is instrumentalized in the service of political ideology.

I didn’t bring up politics at all, and I don’t think that really applies here. It feels like you have an agenda to push…

Maybe I phrased this badly, but I definitely don’t think it’s 100% on parents, society and life experience play a huge role as well.

There will always be a very small percentage of people who just turn out cruel, but I believe 99.9% of people are fundamentally good. It’s just fear or pain in their past or present that causes some to be bad to others.

Also I think this is pretty firmly in the realm of philosophy, at least for now. I’m not aware of any research that can really answer this, although more broadly nurture seems to matter more than nature.

I definitely do. Those who act the worst towards others were usually raised that way, or encountered some kind of struggle that made them bitter.

I strongly believe that if everyone was raised with compassion, and if everyone was supported and had their needs met, then we would see very little evil in the world.

Our society seems structured to bring out the worst in us, and rewards those who behave unethically. A better world is possible though.

I’m afraid I’ll live my whole life in fear like I’m doing now, that I’ll never experience love, that one day I’ll wake up old and alone, in misery and just waiting to die but too afraid end it.