I’m gay

  • 1 Post
Joined duela urte bat
Cake day: urt. 28, 2022


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

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)

This isn’t the only study among those linked which compares risk factors of gun ownership and gun carrying across different locations in the world where laws and rates differ. I’m confused as to how this does not answer your question, as there is a plethora of literature which directly correlate gun carry rates with increased risk of homicide. The only difference between the linked article and the studies on this is the specific timeframe studied… is there something special about 2015-2019 that a doubled carry rate compared in another study would not adequately forecast or explain?

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.

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.

That enables companies like this to take advantage of troves of information to set prices while leaving individuals and families struggling to keep up.

Even if individuals had access to this information, it’s being set by a single source. If companies are unwilling to adjust prices to meet demand, and simply set it to what a single source says they should, what leverage do individuals truly have? How many of the individuals will have the time and energy to investigate the source? Once they investigate the source, what actions can they take?

One might make the argument that they can simply not purchase the service, but is this realistic for something like housing? Would you rather be homeless or pay more than you’re comfortable paying? When a company is gigantic enough to survive a significant period of time where they aren’t making profits or has enough holdings that they can float some empty units in order to make more profits int he long term, what levers can affect the way the company operates if they are secure in knowing that no one else will undercut their prices?

At the end of the day what’s lost on these free market fundamentalists is that supply and demand are concepts to describe a **free ** market. If the market is dominated by a single interest, it is by definition not a free market. As you rightly mentioned, most of the time nowadays, larger interests tend to be on the seller/supply side and they have an imbalanced power dynamic with consumers/demand side. This imbalance leads to a market not being a free market, and fundamentalists tend to ignore a nuanced take on power.

I mean, entirely unsurprising, but I’m glad I wasn’t the only one with this thought when that story broke.

To be clear I wasn’t suggesting it should happen without a transparent log (and a very visible one, not one that’s hidden in the modlog) that it happened, such as by having the original title in small text and the moderator who changed the title attached to the new title. This was mostly a use-case to keep things clear and understandable. As it is someone could post a lot of relevant links and just title them all “Article” for example or “Read this” and it wouldn’t be particularly useful and just leads to a lot of moderator cleanup.

I would perfectly be okay with the original title being displayed somewhere and an indicator that a moderator changed the title. If this is something you don’t want to allow, I understand. To be clear, the situation I’m describing is where someone decided to post an article with a modified title which happened to be kinda clickbait-y but mostly just removed any context of what the article was until you clicked into the post where you can see the linked pages title/heading.

From a user perspective, they may not be particularly responsive. If I remove a post after replying to it, how does a user experience this? Will they be notified their post is removed? Will they get my reply in their message box? If they edit their title and I wish to reinstate the post, is there an easy way to do so, and how would this affect sorting if it took say, 2 days for the user to respond?

There’s a lot of legitimate reasons to re-title a poorly titled post. While I can just remove anything that crosses the line, my guess is the user experience of this kind of behavior would be undesirable. In this case I liked the linked article, but the title of the post made it very unclear what the article was about. I don’t want to have to iterate a bunch of rules, either, to help explain the thought process of why an article being re-titled to be extremely clickbait-y might warrant a moderator action but another post in which someone didn’t match the article title perfectly was fine.

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

What would you like to see? A quick search on pubmed shows 3,615 articles with the search prompt of ‘ghz radiation’, with some pretty comprehensive review articles existing before the roll-out of 5G. This is not something that’s missed by science, but I agree that corporations probably don’t have our best of interests at mind when they lobby the government to expand wavelengths which they can operate on and if you’re getting at being upset with the lack of scientific oversight or no good venues to publicly discuss the public health implications, then I’m definitely on board with you.

Male and female are useful in biology, and therefore in medicine.

As I explained in another comment, in human medicine it is much less useful than knowing what parts a human has and what lab results can tell us about the relevant hormones and other biomarkers of interest. Most people interact with medicine on a personal level, and because of such having more detailed conversations with your doctor(s) will often result in better care.

With that being said, used as a broad term to describe broad effects such as when classifying data at the population level, it can be a useful and quick piece of information to collect. If you’re trying to determine compliance with social determinants of health, it may be faster to collect sex (or gender) than it is to ask people to create a catalog of the important body parts or to ask other broad questions such as “are you disabled” to understand systems better.

It’s an interesting concept, to have a term which is most useful at a certain level of abstraction and less useful the less people you’re referring to with it. We’ve got a decent amount of these in our lexicons and yet I see people drawing false inferences all the time. It’s almost as in if we aren’t having conversations about how broad terms like race, gender, employment status, etc. can be useful when dealing with population level statistics for the purpose of understanding systems, but not particularly useful on an individual basis when trying to determine information about a individual or a small group of them.

I work in healthcare. I’m a data scientist. I get requests all the time where people ask for gender of their patients. Problem is, we don’t capture gender. Or at least, we don’t capture gender for most. We have a field for sex, which is filled in for nearly all patients. Gender is filled in on a separate form which many people are not trained on and thus only present for <5% of our patients.

When I let physicians know that we only have sex available, they inevitably still ask for it. I typically press them as to why- what clinical purpose do you need this for? Their responses vary wildly. Many realize when questioned that they are simply collecting it to collect it - it doesn’t have a real clinical purpose. In some cases, incidences of certain disease states are tied to gender in literature, and knowing that someone is more likely to have a specific disease is something that can be clinically relevant. For these people I provide the information, but I have a short talk with them first. I let them know that the recorded sex often doesn’t tell them what they actually want. There are many individuals with a variety of disorders which can affect what hormones are present in their body, what sex characteristics developed, or how at risk they are for particular disorders. In addition, many trans (and in some cases cis) people may have an inaccurate chart - I have heard plenty of stories of trans men with beards being asked about their prostate by a PCP and trans women asked about concerns related to child birth. While rarer, I have heard the same from some cis people who are androgynous. In most cases a parts inventory is more useful (or in some cases, an understanding of circulating hormones), albeit much like gender, is something we don’t often collect.

Is that all it tells us? Seems a bit of a reach to compare to the usefulness of hot/cold which can inform how/what clothes we should wear to be comfortable or avoid heat stroke or hypothermia, whether an environment can support human life, whether we can get injured from touching an object, what precautions we should be taking when interacting with a hot/cold object, whether a chemical reaction might occur, and many other higher stakes questions than where someone should go to the bathroom.

What does male and female tell us?

We would be very interested in a better method for limitation on this as well - some kind of age and size limits or automatic pruning would be wonderful.

Exercising judgement is a difficult act, but not one that is black or white. It shouldn’t be painted as something that is or isn’t, either. A slippery slope either existing or not is a false dichotomy trying to shoehorn a complicated situation into an on/off configuration.

Calling the application of social pressure to get cloudflare to stop enabling hate a slippery slope is ignoring that it’s arguably the first instance of something like this to happen, it took an enormous amount of effort for it to happen, while it was not happening the livelihoods of individuals were being harassed, harmed, and destroyed, and it involved a private enterprise making a decision for themselves and is not reflective of how others in the industry will respond.

Of important framing, did we call the workers rights movement a slippery slope? Racial justice? Feminism? I think the more contentious the public perception is of a movement, the more likely people are to call something enabling said movement a slippery slope. However, on the opposite side of things we usually recognize the reduction or removal of human rights or governmental representation universally as a slippery slope when the issue is no longer contentious or is broad enough to apply to all individuals (while nobles may have framed the rise of democracies as a slippery slope away from monarchistic and feudal governmental systems, I doubt the same was said by the majority of individuals who stood to benefit from this paradigm shift). Applying the wording of ‘slippery slope’ to make demons out of issues they simply disagree with seemingly only happens by conservative individuals to protect a worldview that suppresses others.

Back in 2014 a company I used to work for started plans on building a new office building. The new building was going to be open office, our current building was semi-open, in that it was cubicles but the cubicles actually blocked above the monitor. I got in touch with the committee working with the architect to better understand the request, what the architect was going to do, and to see how I could get involved. This idea of increased collaboration was really taking off in the 2000s after many large silicon valley tech companies had pushed their idea on others, but by the 2010s there was a growing amount of literature explaining just how open offices were problematic and ways to reduce these problems.

Ultimately the simplest and cheapest solution is to have higher cubicles - they block sound, allow people to not feel like they are being watched 24/7, provide enough of a barrier to prevent people from just idly chattering to each other, and for most people don’t encourage them to invest in a set of really nice noise cancelling headphones as a way to fight the noisy environment. I sent the papers, along with an executive summary as both an email and a powerpoint slide over to the architect. I presented all of this to my boss and once again to people higher up than me. Ultimately, they decided to ignore all the evidence and continue to chase their gut feeling that this will be ‘great’. I left that company before they finished their new building and landed at a new company which also had a much more open office space.

I’m glad I work remote now. These layouts suck, and the author does a great job of explaining exactly why that is very early on in the article. People aren’t stupid, and it doesn’t matter if you put them in a fucking empty box together - if they have need to collaborate, they will, and architecture is going to be one of their last concerns

…they decide, individually and collectively, when to interact. Even in open spaces with colleagues in close proximity, people who want to eschew interactions have an amazing capacity to do so. They avoid eye contact, discover an immediate need to use the bathroom or take a walk, or become so engrossed in their tasks that they are selectively deaf

I mean if you’re writing a blog to get found by SEO you’re doing it for capitalistic reasons and to think you’re above the same capitalistic demise of ‘journalistic integrity’ is just narcissism at that point.

Perhaps ironically this author could have made their point in a much shorter article. I have no issue paying attention to something long that I feel is of good quality. When it’s a seven minute read because you haven’t bothered to reduce the clutter, or because you make the same statement five times, I’m going to lose interest quickly because I’m not sure you have much to say, but rather you just like to hear yourself talk (or in this case, transcribe it).