I’m gay

  • 84 Posts
  • 226 Comments
Joined 1Y ago
cake
Cake day: Jan 28, 2022

help-circle
rss










While I’m not going to tell someone how they should enjoy the internet, there are very real storage costs to host images or even create thumbnails of them. Are those the only pictures that you disapprove of? What about vids?


Thank you for the sentiment. Could you explain more what you mean by “mute noise - especially with pictures and vids”?


A few issues I’ve seen with adoption in the federated/open source world-

There is a technical barrier to entry. The fact that you’re on a website that’s connected to other different websites in the same interface is one that people aren’t particularly familiar with. For a social website, questions around moderation and who you’re interacting with are problems which are hard to address if you’re unwilling or incapable of learning the terminology you need to learn to understand how this works.

Each entry point into this website system is slightly different as well - how it presents itself, the design, who participates on that entry point, what kind of discussions exist. You might stumble across a lemmy instance as your first introduction to lemmy that doesn’t appeal to you and not recognize that it’s not everything that’s available on lemmy and discovering that can be difficult. The same is true of other federated websites.

As you mentioned there’s also issues with algorithmic feed. This is what leads a lot of people to stick with a particular platform. They want content to come to them, rather than searching for it, and they aren’t always aware what content they want. Federated content is much more pull oriented than push oriented and until someone codes an algorithm to push I think there will be a lot of resistance with a particular subset of individuals who are interested in pushed content rather than pulled


Obviously the number of car crash related deaths would dramatically decrease due to COVID lockdowns and remote schooling… leading to the clickbait title

The first graph in the article doesn’t support this. In fact, this very graph is in the thumbnail on this website for the article. Where are you getting this idea from?

This would indicate gang violence

Gang violence is a common dogwhistle used to discriminate against black individuals. The article talks in depth about disparities by race and trends which are not explained by other correlations such as overall crime rates. Where do you think the article is missing information or where do you disagree with the findings? Why does this indicate gang violence?

I blame covid lockdowns, instagram, and tiktok for those deaths more than I blame guns.

This article takes great care to talk with researchers and support their claims with data rather than anecdotes. Why do you think lockdowns, instagram, and tiktok are responsible?


The state of pain medication in the united states just keeps getting worse and worse. The antiquated idea of restricting opiates in response to over-prescription clearly does not work. The federal government overstepped here and we’re scrambling and struggling to find ways to solve this within this broken framework. Unfortunately there’s such a taboo around using drugs that we don’t seem to have any consensus on the federal level on how to fix this problem.

One potential route would be to ease restrictions on prescribing opioids and combine it with more screening for abuse and treating drug dependence instead. Another possible route would be to fast track drugs which we already know and have studied for alternative use, such as ketamine or other dissociatives for pain relief. The most radical route would be to decriminalize drugs and work on support networks as opposed to persecuting those who get addicted.

Yet here we are, with this subject almost never addressed by candidates for governmental positions which need to deconstruct or rework existing legislation to appropriately address this problem.


While this could arguably be placed in science, it made me think about the implications of an entire generation where the brains of children ‘aged’ at an increased rate as compared to peers prior to COVID-19 and what the implications of this might be for society. Mental health as a whole declined over the pandemic, and it’s had me wondering whether it has helped to normalize going to therapy and treating mental health seriously and not as a taboo. Has this affected how children interact with each other and their values and priorities going forward? I don’t think we can answer it at this point in time, but I am curious to follow the research and learn more from others.






It’s a mix, I am not sure if it causes more good or harm. Would be interesting to see a review paper on the outcomes.

A recent example of how this turned out negatively - the California government moved against uber, lyft, etc. to reclassify workers to try and force the companies to provide health insurance. The companies responded by spending millions of dollars to get signatures, push propaganda, and put confusing wording on the ballot to undo this. They spun it as worker’s rights, more or less. It ended up passing by just a few percentage points.

Looks like there’s a list of some of what’s been passed via statewide initiative on the ca.gov website. https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ballot-measures/pdf/approval-percentages-initiatives.pdf

EDIT: looks like ballotpedia has a much more comprehensive list for each year. Here’s 2022


Well, California has a distinct problem - our state allows for any law to be on the ballot given that it receives enough signatures. This is a double edged sword. It allows for the constituents to put issues to vote that the state legislature is unwilling to put up for vote or pass as a law, but it also allows for corporations and other people to push legislation that ultimately benefits them. I don’t know the full story behind this one, but it likely was pushed forward with good intentions but got soured by the typical political process.


Sadly, this will do close to nothing

A report by the Controller’s Office estimated that there are only about 4,000 units potentially affected by the new tax. Units exempted from the tax include single-family homes, duplexes and units under construction, among other exemptions.


Technically they’ve allowed it for some time, but only this last year did someone point out that it could be interpreted this way. It shouldn’t be there at all (and to date it hasn’t been used in this fashion), but I also suspect this will get changed in a year or two, knowing the climate in SF.



The way you insist on this makes me think you are assuming bad faith on my side which is not the case. I don’t like this.

Apologies, I’m trying to understand what makes this time frame unique- what you feel is not addressed by the existing studies. I did not wish to impart any feeling of attack or that I am questioning your faith, I am merely wishing for you to elaborate upon your concerns.


The following is found at the top of the page on the third link

  1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review)

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the U.S., where there are more guns, both men and women are at a higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

The following items 2-4 also address this

  1. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide
  2. Across states, more guns = more homicide, 4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

What is it about the years 2015 to 2019 that are special? Located within the studies listed are evaluations of gun legislation, gun ownership, gun carry rates, and outcomes (notably spanning different periods of time and across different locations in the world). Do you believe that this does not adequately capture the gun related changes described in the article linked?


You don’t need to look far to find a plethora of studies linking firearm legislation and firearm injury but I suspect this isn’t really about whether its worse for society but whether your risk goes up and what contributes to the risk of firearm injury. Unsurprisingly, owning a gun increases your risk of firearm related injury in the same way that being in a country where guns are used to shoot at people (such as the US) also increases your risk. The harvard injury control website has some high level findings that are rather easy to consume if you’re looking for the biggest factors.



A few years ago I listened to a TED talk by Keith Chen, which was focused on the research highlighted in this article. It made a lot of sense to me, that the language constructs which you have and which you use would affect your behavior and how you think about things. Thank you for this article, as it highlights a bunch more research in a subject I haven’t seen much about in some time. I find small quirks in thinking like this quite fascinating and I’m happy to have a new book to read 😄



Their hobbies likely aren’t causing them to have negative feelings, whereas their work more likely is. Humans are somewhat biased towards needing to vent and talk about issues which cause them negative feelings that they have to do.

People also talk about work for a variety of social reasons. Most importantly, perhaps, is that people often measure social standing by their work. Where they work, what jobs they have, how much money they make, and other characteristics of work are important for many human social evaluations. Because this is important, it becomes socialized as something that you should discuss, and thus becomes a common topic of conversation. People then internalize it as something they should talk about, or is interesting to talk about. It’s a self sustaining model built upon the foundations of social worth and evaluation, supported by the emotional needs of humans.

Interestingly you’ll see that in certain circles where social worth is not derived from your work (minorities in which upwards mobility or potential jobs are limited often talk less about work) but from other aspects of your life (talking about children is a favorite for those who have them and artists love to talk about their creative pursuits) that you’ll find conversation drifting towards different topics instead.

I think the best thing you can do, if you find this boring, is to attempt to redirect conversation away from work and towards something you’d rather talk about. People will naturally drift back towards conversation that they find useful, interesting, or have been socialized to do and ultimately you may need to tolerate this or find a group of friends less interested in talking about their career. I’ve generally found that quips which highlight it’s silly to be talking about work away from work (such as when participating in work offsite trips) or highlight how work is just a means to make money and I’m disinterested in talking about capitalism and would rather know the person and what they find interesting tend to work well to divert conversation away from chatting about work.



Tell that to people unwilling to leave twitter because they are struggling to find content on mastodon. The major benefit of big social media companies is typically that they provide an algorithm to content that people find interesting by paying an invasive amount of attention to what you do on their websites and how you interact with content.

While not everyone is as interested in an algorithms idea of what we would like to see or content we would enjoy, to ignore that many people out there are very interested or to paint it as purely a means of advertisement ignores why some humans are still on these platforms and the source of their attraction.





Re-title a post?
Is there a way to change the title of a post someone else created on a community you moderate? If not, can we please add this functionality
fedilink