I’m not sure what this really adds. If someone’s only reading Lemmy through Mastodon, why not just stay on Mastodon? It’s nice to crosspost, but I only get Mastodon posts I want to see. But I see all the Lemmy posts on a given community, so it seems vulnerable to spammy @'s.
At the very least I’d say ‘wait until a few lemmies federate’ before lumping that on the admins. I have no idea what the fallour or additional work might be.
This is a title people give to you, not a registered profession. Linus, from Linux Tech Tips is an influencer insofar as he influences people.
While a lot of kids saying “I want to be famous” are a little cringe, if we want to be more charitable we should understand people who say ‘I want to be an influencer’ simply as ‘I want to do well at this job’, which isn’t a bad thing, unless the job is bad.
That has the same fundamental problems, with a smaller network (fewer people use it). If you’re looking for something which will never have those issues, I’d recommend anything on XMPP. Yax, for example, will let you chat with anyone on the xmpp protocol (like conversations, profanity, et c. et c.). It’ll never disappear, and if some problem arises, you can just change the client and keep your account and contacts (basically it’s e-mail but for IMs).
I think the pros/ cons are fairly standardized at this point - we all know the same things:
I suspect some of the hate on Reddit is simply due to size, though some might be about money - more users means more cash, whereas with self-hosted platform, there’s little cash incentive.
Another use of federation is notification - you can follow @firstname.lastname@example.org from Mastodon, and you’ll see posts come up in your feed, so there’s no requirement to continuously check or get an email notification.
How do you know #2 on your list won’t cause problems later
Same attitude as a blocklist, broadly. Once someone’s on the shit-list, you just need to be okay with those messages lying in the bin, unseen.
That goes against the fundamental “push” nature of email,
Yea, that’s what I’m going for. It seems to work for IMs. And if someone emails me from nowhere, offering wonderful things, I’ll get back to them late, but don’t have to get a ‘ding’ from all the random crap.
I think progress has to look like it’s being made, most of the time. If you prefer modern norms to 70’s norms, then you’d say things have improved.
Clearly, standards in Europe have improved over the last few centuries, but I’m not sure how much of this relates to ethics - a lot of improvements come directly from technology. Women’s rights are much easier to sell when big-paying jobs are in tech, which doesn’t require much grip-strength.
On the other hand, technology hasn’t done any favours for animal welfare, so swings and roundabouts.
Seems like an awful thing to do.
Currently I message people whenever I want, but if this is common, I’ll have to start checking timezones and thinking about when people sleep, or just setting the computer to send messages at the next 9am.
Seems like it’d be easier for everyone to use the phone’s built-in function to go dnd at night.
Philosopher Solomon pointed out that emotions follow reasoning hand-in-hand, quite reliably.
If you think someone’s stolen from you, you feel angry. If you find out they didn’t steal from you, you stop being angry at them. Perhaps you become angry at yourself for losing the item, but again -that’s reasoning coming into play.
Emotions seem part of a judgement at every point. When your friend starts talking about how great someone is, you might conclude they’re having romantic feelings, because part of loving someone is thinking they’re great (if things are going well).
Even when someone’s feeling ‘just generally irritated’, this usually translates to persitently judging things to be bad - thinking their government, or the kids’ music, and the latest TV shows are bad.
Judgement can be irrational, and the emotions will follow suit, but to feel happy that you’re going to see an old friend doesn’t seem at all irrational.
I’m very interested in this topic, how would you define the maximal total utility for a group with different values?
I’ll try to condense what I’ve read with some bullet points:
even the slightest difference could lead to large splits.
Yes - every difference in someone’s individual utility mappings can affect a given decision, but it’s not all that crazy once you look at real-world examples.
And is there a limit to optimization for a group before it starts coming at a cost for subgroups?
Yes - and utilitarians won’t add any suggestions on where to take the split.
5 people want to go to the cinema. 2 of them love Marvel, 1 hates Marvel. The currently playing films are ...
Mathematically, this example threatens to become insanely challenging, but we make these decisions every day, so clearly we’re making some attempt to maximize utility, even if we’re not 100% successful.
In a global perspective, the difference between i.e. catholics and protestants are comperatively small yet some experience a large divide.
This is an easy one - don’t take global perspectives when making decisions, unless it’s a question with a super-homogenous answer like ‘should people get stabbed by rabbid monkeys?’.
A master’s degree in Philosophy, specializing in ethical theory.
Take for example, the statement “he didn’t deserve that”. How do we find out if that’s true?
Or we can look at the lack of epistemological grounding. If I bet you €5 that some building is taller than another, we can go online, find out who’s right, and the money’s paid out.
Now imagine I bet you that fur clothing is always morally wrong. How could the money get paid out? What evidence would make a publicly available conclusion?
I hope so, and it’s sort-of the aim.
Hume and Locke’s writings are often on ‘Philosophy of Mind’ - a subject which wasn’t at the time anything like a science. Nowadays, lots of the mind is squarely under the purview of neuroscience, or psychology.
Utilitarianism was always a branch hoping to involve science, and eventually become law. Bentham - the originator - stated this should be the methodology for writing laws. Instead of vague moral debates, we should answer the single question ‘what would bring the most utility to people?’.
Nobody will do any of the things needed to install Linux:
The only time we’ve seen Linux adoption, is when it comes preinstalled on devices:
If Windows 10 stops getting support, people either use a non-supported OS (like they do with Windows 7), or they buy a new computer.
A progressive tax scheme seems to work well for the UK.
I sometimes wonder if we’d be better off continuing those tax brackets until 99%, so that everything over some number, like €1M per year, becomes almost entirely tax. I don’t see much point in having people who own €20M. If €20M doesn’t make you happy, it’s probably time to start trying medication, rather than money.
The rest of the ‘how’ gets more fiddly. Every article on tax loopholes I read seems incomplete, so I guess a comprehensive tax system will take some work, with some very cynical and prepared people.
I’m not sure what the point would be, or what the exact plan is.
If it’s making male-only online spaces to talk about Left-Wing men’s issues, then I’m not sure what the point is, and we already have mostly-male spaces all over the internet, some of which talk about Feminism.
If the idea’s to focus on men’s issues, then we also have plenty of spaces for that already. I’ve known a few Feminists who take time to look at men’s problems (mostly women), but Feminist movements usually focus on women’s issues because the biggest problems lie there atm, at least as far as I can see (e.g. right now, Roe V Wade’s being overturned).
While everyone’s talk about collecting data has some truth, a big part is just because an app often works better than the website.
If you wanted to use Mastodon only through the mobile’s web, the display would be messed up (because of the tiny screen), and you wouldn’t be able to flip between accounts so easily.
While websites try to do everything for everyone, a specialized app can do one job, and do it well.
The comments don’t seem anti-Linux.
Top commenter says they don’t know the commanads. Fair enough for a gaming sub - setting up gaming stuff like Wine can be a headache.
Second comment says Linux is great, but they dual-boot for games. Also fair enough - Windows is the best OS for gaming. Maybe Linux is second best, which isn’t bad, but it’s not number 1.
All throughout, lots of dual-booters there. I don’t know what the issue is - gaming sub’s gonna use Windows.
Looks like we’ve solved a few issues raised there: there’s no double-spending, as only the first on the block-chain counts (I guess one could also write a script to verify that, and reject merges which show a double-spend).
I don’t see why anyone cares about the transaction price, unless you’re into selling things just to sell on, so that sounds like a non-problem for people who simply want to verify ownership of art.
The methodology to answer the question is pretty clear. Go through some ‘experimental philosophy’, and see if that question could have obtained a grant in the Psychology department.
If the answer is ‘no’, then ‘no’.
If the answer is ‘yes’, then it looks like the disciplines have some overlap.