Another big problem was the psychological trap of connections, family and friendship.

Sure, maybe you can make it out. But what are they going to do to your friends and family when you do? Because they have to at least suspect that your family and friends knew you were going.

Information is an abstract thing, like 1+1=2, it doesn’t exist like physical things. Physical things can be arranged to represent it and be used to communicate it, but the information itself is something different and other.

The natural state of things is entropy. Every data carrying medium will decay, and break or die. But if that’s a guaranteed, constant problem, the only way for information, that different, other thing to continue to exist, is to spread. Spreading is easier when it happens without barriers: freely.

Lots of skyscrapers with windows in America… would be a shame if someone fell out of one.

The “tongues have taste zones” thing is the only thing that comes to mind.

And to reward you, we’re giving you 24-hour visibility

(which is nothing special; there are 6 slots available for this visibility every day of the year for various Steam invitations).

He has no clue what he’s talking about Steam in 2021 had 69 MILLION daily active users. WTF do you think is a bigger number 130.000 wishlists or getting even 1% of 69 million people to look at something in the reel?

People don’t understand the size of steam or the value of that space (that one of six slots) sometimes. It’s wild.

And also, THEY noticed, THEY informed him, THEY apologized, and THEY offered some form of compensation, which they legally don’t have to.

I am soooooooooooooooo tired of indie devs blaming everything from the constellation of the stars to the quality of the donuts on a different continent for their game not doing well, except that maybe the game isn’t that good, and also those 100.000 already sold units is the actual size of the market for that game.

Very good, we need more non github hosting sites.

The thing that always gets me about the Renaissance is Galileo:

He did those experiments with things falling down? Measuring speed?

Yeah. Without a clock.

The theory for how to build those came later, based on what Galileo did.

It’s an artificially created, partially abstract environment where people buy and sell goods and services, sometimes using money.

Do you get what I’m giving out?

Yes, but that’s not what “the market” is about, and nobody would ever make the claim that it is.

The market operates in whatever environment it’s in. It’s the job of the people running the market to set the rules, environment and make people follow the rules.

Now each vendor has a right to have a booth and sell products.

sidenote: That is not true btw. Market stalls cost money, there is limited space available and there are terms and conditions relating to the products you’re allowed to sell and your conduct on the market. If you violate those rules, you don’t get to participate, and the administration running the market doesn’t have to give you a stall. You don’t have an unconditional right to participate.

If and only if, e.g. safety of the customers is something that’s in those conditions, then it becomes a rule that’s part of the environment the market participants have to navigate. But the responsibility for setting those rules is on the administration, not on the market participants.

In the market, that’s not “lack of nuance”. The market doesn’t “select” the best product, people just buy stuff. It was never claimed that the market could select the best product.

“The market” has two functions: it correctly finds an equilibrium for how much people want stuff, and how difficult it is to make or acquire. And the second is that through distribution of the supply problem, every participant can solve a small part of the supply problem, which would be harder if it was done in a centralized way, particularly without our modern communications technology.

See the problem is that they have people who…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellant

They will read your post and say “Nono, I want them to experience actual, physical pain. None of that metaphorical stuff. Whip them. Beat them with clubs.”

You’re still underestimating what some of these people will do to themselves and want to do to others.

First of all, there is the problem of senior editors being in control and if you do anything, they just revert it, or delete it. There are reasons why there are already many different wikis and not just one.

Then as the other commenter shared, they have the goal of a neutral point of view, but that’s an idealistic goal that can’t be reached. The neutrality with which something is presented is sometimes a problem. For example in political spheres it can make more sense to read two very biased articles from opposing sides, than one that tries to present both sides objectively.

So it would be really helpful to see side by side comparisons or disambiguation pages that lead to different perspectives.

And you can sort of do this already, but the point of federation is also that it’s more tightly integrated than “you can have your own forum” which was true before as well.

Kann sein, aber nicht die gefälschten.

Es ist seit “generativer KI” fast null Aufwand solche Bilder zu fälschen. (War anscheinend zu schwer den ganzen Satz zu lesen den du im Meme zitiert hast). Aus Grundlage reicht das Bewerbungsfoto bei LinkedIn.

Vor… Uff… 11 Jahren, als Apple’s “sichere” cloud gehackt wurde. DA konnte man teilweise das Argument machen, das wenn man nicht will das solche Bilder existieren sollte man keine machen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_celebrity_nude_photo_leak Und selbst da wäre es victim blaming. Wenn die Firma einen sicheren Speicherservice anbietet, sollte man annehmen das er sicher ist.

Anyway, das ist absolut Geschichte. Das läuft so einfach nicht mehr.

Sorry for the rant, but why can’t we as a community be more active in supporting [blank]

I don’t care about your fantasy of utopia, I need a working thing.

That doesn’t mean I’m hating on anything. Specifically the pine phone’s mistake was that they branded as “early adopter” thing too hard. If it says “extensive linux experience required”, that’s not me and I’m not going to sink 200-400$ into a thing that “likely” won’t work, because I don’t have the prerequisite experience.

It’s not my idea to make “open source business” work, the people who are offering that sort of stuff believe in it, and they have to make it work.

Me not believing in that fantasy and calling a “not fit for purpose thing” not fit for purpose, doesn’t make me a dirty traitor ‘to the community’.

Same for “struggling artists” btw. I see the same pattern in that space. If art doesn’t work for you, do something else.

They threaten to apply the law that’s supposed to be applied to everyone equally anyway?

I’m sure they’re shaking in their boots, if that’s a threat and not just… normality.

Also, Hanlon’s Razor applies to individuals.

A small child dropping a glass? An adult causing an accident? Sure, that’s incompetence.

A company shipping a bad product that kills people? Malice, and Greed. They could afford someone to check that people don’t get hurt, they profit from the misery.

Danke, hab ich korrigiert.

Polizeiliche Daten oder Anwendungen sollen nach eigenen Angaben nicht betroffen sein.

Ja. Macht Sinn. Das wäre bestimmt illegal, sowas macht ja keiner.

Man bricht bestimmt in die IT Infrastruktur eines deutschen östereichischen Ministeriums mit vertraulichen Daten ein, weil man gucken will welche Desktop Hintergründe die dort so benutzen.

And where exactly can I go to get factual information about this sort of thing?

Basically nowhere. Meaning you can get numbers, but even those are under “don’t trust statistics you haven’t falsified yourself”.

Everyone is working with different sets of assumptions and morals and rules.

There is a tldr at the end.

One economic angle is that “we need immigration” because of jobs. However it’s undeniable that any amount of workers, be they “home grown” or immigrants, always increase the supply of labor and therefore drive down the price that people can negotiate. So, naturally, everyone who wants to employ people for cheap or weaken union negotiation leverage will want immigration.

The same economic angle from the other side is that “we need immigration”, because there are a number of jobs where not enough people are applying and working and the economy and society as a whole does depend on that work being done.

One option is to not allow immigration, let prices rise, which will price out some people out of some services (like elderly care), but will also raise the standard of living for the workers working those jobs.

The other option is to allow immigration, keep prices low and affordable, but also implicitly exploits people doing the work and keeps them with less negotiation power.

Which is which, is up to you.

Then there is the moral / integration angle.

On the one hand, taking people in, when they need help is good. That’s the basis for the Asylum system.

On the other hand, what actually is the limit of taking people in? Is it 10.000 per year or is it 100.000.000? Clearly some limit does exist, but who sets it?

To use a totally overblown scenario: the government could force people to shelter migrants in their own homes, use bunkbeds and recreate conditions that existed during the industrialization. For some asylum seekers, that would still be an improvement to being persecuted in their countries of origin. But obviously everyone who likes NOT having bunk beds of strangers in their living room, wouldn’t like it. In an abstract sense, they would still have a moral obligation to help, but it’s difficult to stand by that if it’s about people’s living rooms.

Some people may say, less than 5 people per living room still leaves plenty of space, for others even 1 is too much. The “limit” is subjective.

And the rest is more or less that issue, although it’s not literally about people’s living rooms:

• can demands be made of the “guests” and which kind and how many?
• should they work to offset the costs, or (see above) is that problem for the economy?
• do you “set the rules” because it’s “your living room” but that’s going into the culture bit.

I’m leaving out a huge chunk about culture, but that’s also equally subjective.

So is there actually an issue with immigration, or do the people that argue that case actually have it backwards?

It’s a problem, because people feel it is a problem and because they voice that. If it’s a “fake concern”, but “real outrage”, the outrage is still a problem for the country, even though the motivation may be nonsense.

It doesn’t have to be rational.

There may not be a solution that’s acceptable to everyone. If so, how much forcing which perspective is acceptable?