chicken

Hate this kind of thing. Would be cool if there was a more decentralized alternative for ecommerce that people actually use.

What's extra confusing is that I've seen people asking about how to get this information from the API, with the answer being that you can't (I guess to protect privacy?). It's only accessible to federated servers, but then those can do what they want with it including publishing it to everyone.

I remember a little while ago a thread with someone from kbin gloating that they could see what everyone was voting, and accusing the people upvoting comments they disagreed with of being bigots in a vaguely threatening way obviously intended to produce a chilling effect, and people found this surprising because that information is not public on most instances.

I basically agree with the people saying open info is just the nature of posting on a public forum and of federation, but there could be improvements, even just in awareness of what is and isn't private.

If enough people pirate, there will be popular support for reforming copyright, so eventually there's less crackdown

Hope it goes up more

This is more of an argument against EM than free speech absolutism, since your point is that he doesn't actually believe in it. But anyway it seems like there should be some possible middle ground between a truly absolutist position on free speech, and the overt disdain for free speech implied by a vague prohibition like the OP law. Isn't it valuable for people to generally be able to speak their minds? That can be the case even if the loudest people hiding behind the idea are disingenuous, or if the furthest interpretations of it go too far.

We agree with Paul Collier when he says, “Economic growth is not a cure-all, but lack of growth is a kill-all.”

We believe everything good is downstream of growth.

So Techno-Optimism is just a minor flavor of Neoliberalism I guess?

Modern version of this will be ChatGPT jailbreak messages

I don't think that's necessarily true, right wing activist trolls go for volume.

Fucking authoritarians ruin everything

??? That's exactly why it makes sense though?

I think most of the time it's really not going to be as hard as all that, because the problem is something like, article makes broad claim based on a very easy to understand study where the data is results of survey questions. The paper clearly and explicitly outlined caveats and qualifications for their results, but the article chose to ignore these, so all that would be required to call them out on it is basic reading comprehension and the ability to copy paste a brief quote from the paper. Or maybe there are stark, obvious differences between the question asked in a survey and the claim of a clickbait headline.

Even for something more complex, if the paper is well written I think people without a background in the field could get stuff out of it, at least enough to spot direct contradictions between it and a summary. It's just reading. A lot of people can read and have some higher education.

For that wikipedia article, I think it would make more sense if it expanded on "may differ slightly" and how that interacts with this criticism of black hole information transfer being impossible. Would that criticism imply the parameters for new universes must be always the same? Have infinite variance with no reference point? Not exist at all? Is "may differ slightly" a claim that each universe is a reference point around which the cosmological constants of child universes randomly vary a little bit and then there could be drift based on which constants result in a universe with more black holes? If that stuff was concisely clarified it would probably seem less arcane.