Are you asking me why I have an opinion on something? Because I do. You don’t need special reasons to make comments on a forum.

You aren’t listening. They depicted black people in the fashion that they depicted Greek people. They didn’t find them a weird novelty. The nature of ancient Greek prejudice wouldn’t have them depict people as Greek that they didn’t consider Greek. That intrinsically says something about the cultural integration, because that’s what the Greeks got weird over. If it was uncommon for them to be there they would have mentioned it because they mentioned all manner of uncommon things.
If they were a part of the society, and common enough that it wasn’t worth mentioning “…and then the one black guy in Athens showed up…”, then it seems clear to me that that’s “plenty”.

Nothing is being spun. I and others have given you evidence. You haven’t and are just making vacuous claims. Why do you have the opinion you do about the skin tone content of ancient Greece? Is it the enlightenment era paintings of Greek philosophers as white as could be? That the paint fell off the statues so now they’re just white marble? That all the black people in the pottery are “obviously” artistic choices, but the white people just … Are?
I’m sure you have a reason for thinking what you do, so what is it?
Neither a conversation nor a debate works by one person demanding evidence, denying it, and then refusing to elaborate In their beliefs.

Alright, demonstrate that the demographics are as you assert they are. I’ve shown you that they’re depicted in their arts and culture, both as they depicted outsiders and as they depicted themselves, as well as that they had unremarkable interactions with Ethiopia and beyond.
The link also details the history of using the racial composition of ancient Greece for all manner of racial weirdness that wasn’t representative of the Greeks themselves, up to and including Internet race weirdos who get bent out of shape about a black person being depicted in a movie set in the Mediterranean.

At this point you’ve been given plenty of evidence that there sufficient numbers of dark skinned people that it wasn’t remarkable. If you disagree that it would somehow have been remarkable, or that this isn’t a perfectly workable definition of “plenty”, then show some reason why beyond “well everyone knows”.
Hell, demonstrate that there were plenty of white people.

Define “plenty”.

The ancient Greeks didn’t care about skin tone in the modern sense, so there isn’t some racial census data like we have now.

https://lucas.leeds.ac.uk/article/skin-colour-in-ancient-greece/

They make trivial to find references to black people and depict them in the manner they depict themselves in art.
Because their division was not “Greek” and “black” but “Greek” and “not Greek”, they simply didn’t document it.
Aristotle describes the ideal skin tone as halfway between an Ethiopian and a woman.

Black people were quite literally unremarkable to them, so it’s pretty easy to argue that an ancient Greek wouldn’t find it odd to travel with a black person.

So for the first part, I don’t disagree at all. I just don’t think the logistics or theoretical necessity is a bearing on the symbolic-ness of it. Same for the effectiveness of it. Even if it changed literally nothing and no one would ever know I still wouldn’t shake hands with someone I considered evil.

I don’t see defining a subset of what you consider evil, like dissemination of hate speech, to be a downside.

There’s a lot of complex questions around a platform curating ideological content which could possibly make them loose certain platform protections. Right now most platforms are roughly content neutral because it allows them to be viewed as platforms, rather than publishers. This is more a response to the claim that there’s no reason for them not to remove ice. It may or may not be compelling, but it’s a real reason.

As for the use of the word “service”, sometimes my hands type slower than my brain thinks. My intent was to convey “those who develop and control the mastodon license”. Hopefully my original statement makes more sense in that context.
Those are the people providing the printing press schematic analog. Obviously an idea can’t support an ideology in that sense.

I’m not of the opinion either supports them in a way that’s worth getting angry over.
We also aren’t talking about being angry at ISPs for being willing to deliver packets to and from ice or Nazis, or any of the other entities that do less then the most they could possibly do to distance themselves.

Says the fact that it’s come up multiple times amongst a wide swath of the open source community, and look about you. Those licenses aren’t used. One or two exist and have a vanishingly small usage level and a couple more I have been “in progress” for years.
The people who write most of the open source licenses have explanations for why it’s not compatible.

Group behavior is a collective decision and a reflection of the group.

No, you’re not understanding what I’m saying. I’m not the person you were replying to.
Mastodon is a piece of software. It has a license, just like bluesky or any other. You can put a clause in the license saying the software cannot be used for the dissemination of hate speech. The open source community has discussed this and decided it goes against the principles of free software and open source.

If you’re mad at one and not the other, you’re applying different standards because being part of the fediverse weighs more.

Personally I hold platforms to a different standard and so I’m neither mad at mastodon nor bluesky. I just think it’s hypocritical to be mad at someone for publishing a fascists letter but not be mad at the person who gave the same fascist a printing press.

So the mastodon service supports Nazis.

nobody owns it and anyone can run it

They could have chosen a license that forbid usage for spreading hate. They put “free software” and “open source” above blocking hate speech.
They’re providing software to Nazis, and I don’t really see how that makes them better than providing a place to post.

I would recommend it. It can take a minute your first time through to get to some of the intense optimization stuff, but a lot of it’s there really early.
The dominant gameplay loop by far is “you have tools. There’s a new problem to solve with those tools that’s hard/tedious. Solving it means you can make tools that make the problem easier. Goto step one”.

That fits. I think games where you need to care for a dumb little creature hit a couple buttons in our psychology. You want to make it do the right thing because you want to succeed at the game and get that reward of “it did good”. It’s struggling, which means you’re paying attention to it, and it’s doing so with enough charm that you’re not just entirely indifferent. Most importantly, it needs to succeed often enough to make sure you know it can, and slowly get better so you have the long term satisfaction of having improved it. Extra bonus points if you can give a bit of wish fulfillment fantasy. “My sim who regularly eats old fish out of the trash is somehow a self employed artist who lives in a great house I got distracted and built to my dream specification. I would totally play pool until I wet myself and fell asleep crying on the floor.”

I think there’s actually a lot of truth to fun being related to frustration. If something is too easy you don’t get the dopamine hit, because why would your brain reward you for learning something trivial? If it’s too hard the path to most joy is giving up. At the sweet spot it’s obviously possible, but you struggle enough that you get a dash of dopamine for succeeding. The trick is keeping the struggle varied or infrequent enough that you’re brain doesn’t declare it a source of diminishing returns.

Shitty mobile games are the king of it, since they have a standard/easy ramp that quickly moves to just above most people’s threshold with the “out” of a loot box that has a chance to give you a bonus labeled as just a small boost. And they’re normally $10/10, but the 50 packs is $15 for the moment, and since you’re new you get $10 off…

Not-those types of games tend to just try for “balanced difficulty scaling”.

The factorio dev blog has some good reads about finding the right balance of tedium as driving mechanism to figure out automation and also needing the game to be enjoyable. Basically the moment an activity becomes stale they want you to be able to automate it

City skylines would be the best place to live, and would have a natural friendship with factorio.

It would be a bit weird making a bowl of cereal and having a freight train blast up to your house at 200mph, a robot flies out of the depot just past the dog park, skims above the pedestrian walkways at just under the speed of sound, unloads the single stack of of cereal boxes that the train is carrying and sticks it in your pantry before they both vanish just as fast. You only had a half a box of raisin bran left and you hit the resupply threshold.

Okay, but trying to guide a braindead little sim automaton through basically playing factorio would be incredible. “Oh my God, why are you running the blue circuit belt through there? Stop it! No! STOP CRYING DIANE, YOU CHOSE TO SKIP EATING AND USE A SUSHI BELT. Stop eating off the floor, there’s coal everywhere”.

The US has done many horrible things, but that’s an awful list to go by. It mixes US involvement in the Philippines and the nightmare that was with “Israel killed someone and it’s likely the US was aware”, NATO involvement in Bosnia, and the US usage of radio and press releases to influence world opinion in its favor.
Specific incidents in Bosnia? Certainly. But on the face of it, the US joining with other nations to intervene in an ethnically driven civil war isn’t an attrocity. The US being aware of an Israeli operation isn’t a US attrocity. Propaganda isn’t an attrocity.
Hell, one entry literally seemed to be “American soldiers reported a South Korean war crime through appropriate channels, and this didn’t change US foreign policy”

Mixing actual attrocities in with the benign or unrelated things just dilutes the actual attrocities, particularly when the preamble says to play up to emotional outrage.

Problem with that line of thinking is that it presumes they won’t do those things anyway. If they want just cause, they just declare it. If anyone to the left in any way does anything, it’s a seditious partisan act by the extreme left and very likely a justifiable use for the insurrection act.

Concerning ourselves with how they’ll take things is putting our actions under their review. Preemptively bending to their will before they even express it out of fear of how they might react.

If they’re going to call you radical and extreme, you may as well enjoy the benefits rather than try to appease them.

50% of the electorate wouldn’t be hurt by sanctions, or 50% of the electorate would be arrested?

In either case, I’m referring to the president, his staff and cabinet. People actually directly making decisions who won’t see any consequences from sanctions.

Nah. Just a targeted police action to arrest the rogue elements who purport to be the lawfully elected government.

They’d be justified in sanctions, but I don’t think that it would actually accomplish anything. The people doing this shit don’t give a flying fuck about them because it would hurt you and me, not them.

I mean, it can be absurd and also why they do it. Plantars don’t add extra oil to theirs, so they need more binder. They’re not doing it for no reason at all or to specifically spite those who don’t eat animal products.

Animal protein works better as a binder in most cases. It keeps the seasoning from falling off as fast.

Honestly, nothing much really comes to mind as a special precaution that I would think of. Don’t go down alleys alone, don’t follow strangers that try to get you to go places. Don’t get drunk alone in unfamiliar areas that aren’t super populated. Don’t make flashy displays of wealth.

No real impact on daily life. I’ve gotten lost in bad parts of Detroit before and that was unideal, but that was because there’s still a lot of ability for people to know you don’t live there just based on appearance.

So, my intent is not to turn this into the misery Olympics or anything, so I’m just going to clarify a few points and say that the main thrust of my message was the end: if people are telling you what they can and can’t afford in a country you’re less familiar with, it’s probably better to assume they know their own economy better than you do, rather than deciding a nation of hundreds of millions of people are financially over cautious.

The $1000 figure is for all of the US, regardless of if it’s high income low cost of living or anything else, and refers to money that can be deposited in savings at the end of the month.
For example, the UK has this figure at roughly $1100 USD.

The city I live in has remarkably close to twice the expenses as yours. In the US a car isn’t optional unless you live in the biggest if cities though. It would take four hours for me to walk to my doctor’s office, and longer by bus, but there’s only four bus visits per day at the office. A fair bit of the roadway lacks sidewalks. Either way a doctor’s visit means taking a day off work if you don’t have a car.

The 25% rate isn’t poverty rate, it’s more a measure of financial safety margin. You can be well above the poverty line and still have zero net income, it just means you can’t tolerate changes in income or expenses without things becoming extremely problematic. Our poverty level is based on an idealized measure of food costs nationwide and does a poor job measuring things. It was originally put together before we had great knowledge of what contributed to poverty, and it’s been a political tool used as a lever to justify cutting assistance programs for a long time, so changing it has been difficult.

I think you got my description backwards. There’s an amount I pay no matter what, and a point after which I pay nothing (with caveats). So the most I pay is that $11k number, unless the insurance company decides a procedure was unnecessary or the provider was unsupported (if you end up in the hospital you might not be able to choose your doctors, and some of them might not be covered by your insurance, which you’ll find out later. Aforementioned baby delivery cost $650,000 . I paid $6,500. Then I got billed for another $12,000 and change because of stuff like the insurance company deciding some tests were unnecessary and not working with some of the nurses.). My insurance situation is pretty good though, since a lot of people have significantly less at a higher cost.

it sounds like you’re probably better off with any odd job in Europe if you put it that way

That is in many ways true. America has a higher cap on income but Europe generally has a better safety net. I’m fortunate to have ended up in a low cost of living area with a high salary job, so I’m currently better off where I am, but as children and myself get older, a social safety net that means my retirement isn’t at the whims of the stock market and an education system that won’t potentially put my children in debt for life has an increasingly large appeal.

San Diego is a very high cost of living area. $100,000 would be a modest income there that would get you a minimal comfortable life. Like, $3,000 a month for a 1 bedroom apartment.
San Diego is also one of the safest cities in the US. Fun fact: while confirming that I found out I live in one of the more dangerous cities in the country. So that’s fun.
So yeah, San Diego is gonna give you more wealthy people with higher costs of living and very low crime. Factor that in to your assessments.

Housing economics are very disparate between countries. You can’t directly compare them easily. A two story house is basic construction here, they tend to avoid building anything smaller because it’s not significantly cheaper to build or sell. Our houses are built with different objectives so they tend to be cheaper to make taller, and it’s just expected that it’ll get replaced in 50 or 60 years.
The person you talked to in San Diego was likely renting a house, which is often cheaper than an apartment. That fits with the price you mentioned.