It’s kind of interesting to watch in open source which projects survive and which get forked and essentially made irrelevant. It basically becomes a referendum on the vision of the original individual or team and how well they’re serving the collective user base. If they aren’t accepting PR’s and competently managing development, they’ll likely be forked. So I’m glad to see that folks are making progress with mbin and I can’t help thinking that its entire existence is probably due to individuals not being able to agree on a roadmap for the platform. If anybody has any info on any drama that led to this, I’d be curious to read about it.

What you’re describing is only possible on de-anonymized platforms that essentially have “know your customer” type policies where users have to provide some kind of proof of their identity. While I agree that there is value in social spaces where everyone generally knows the people they’re interacting with are who they say they are, I don’t think this is ever going to be feasible in a federated social platform. I think Facebook is the closest thing we have to what you’re describing, to be honest, and I believe Meta has even kicked around having a more sandboxed Instagram for minors (though I don’t use Instagram, so I’m not certain on the details there).

For me, in most cases on a platform like Lemmy, a person’s age is not something I care about. I care about what people are sharing and saying. But then again, none of my interests for online discussion at this point in my life are really age centric. I think there are clearly better platforms than Lemmy if people want to guarantee they’re only interacting within their age specific peer groups.

A study paid for by casinos shows casinos are a benefit to society instead of a drain? *Shocked Pikachu face*

It’s easy to look at all the positives when you just ignore the negatives, after all.

It all starts with defining what morality means. The way I would define morality is behaviors that maximize flourishing for sentient creatures and minimize suffering. While it is clearly difficult to quantify flourishing and suffering, there are behaviors that clearly cause suffering in this world and impede the opportunity for flourishing and, by the above definition of morality, are plainly immoral. The way I see it, rejecting the possibility that flourishing and suffering can be quantified at all is the only argument that can be made against moral absolutism. Everything else is just quibbling over relevant variables across the spectrum of available behaviors to determine what makes them more or less moral. There is always a behavior that is objectively the more moral choice, but it might be difficult in practice to determine which is the more moral choice due to a lack of available relevant data. The absence of said data shouldn’t be assumed to be because it doesn’t/can’t exist, but rather that it hasn’t been collected. Rejecting the idea that there is always a more moral behavior amongst several choices is the dangerous assumption, imo.

I’ve never heard a rational defense of moral relativism that made any sense. If there are no moral truths, then serial killers have done nothing wrong for example. If a moral relativist admits that there are some moral truths, then moral relativism is completely indefensible. At that point, you’re just arguing over what is and what is not a moral truth.

Yeah, I’m holding on to the lifetime grandfathered premium and don’t foresee myself using anything else until they end it.

Yes, Koch has apparently funded a good amount of Ken Burns’ work. I have no reason to suspect that Ken Burns has let Koch influence the content of his work, however.

A lawsuit when 23 states were already doing it? GOP’s voter rolls are going to grow too.

This isn’t even a new phenomenon, accusations of antisemitism were also often thrown at anti-Zionists when there were plenty of good political reasons not to establish and prop up the state of Israel. (What’s also funny about that is there were/are actually antisemites who were/are in favor of getting rid of Jews from their country by exporting them to Israel.)

He probably doesn’t deserve a devil’s advocate, but that said, I’m pretty sure Louis didn’t masturbate in public, but rather during phone calls and in private in front of unconsenting or at least not explicitly consenting company, from the accounts I’ve read. I’m not defending it because it’s abusive and wrong, but it’s also not quite the same thing as masturbating in public.

Yeah, except Bernie’s supporters voted for Hillary at higher rates than Hillary folks voted for Obama, so maybe Hillary, her dumb fucking insecure email server, her lack of personality, and the DNC who helped her cheat her way through primary debates are the real ones to blame, not the progressives. She was a terrible candidate who the right hated and independents didn’t like much better and she proved she was a terrible candidate by losing to the worst Republican candidate in the last hundred years. She had all the help she should’ve needed from progressives.

I have no idea how anyone could have more than a passing familiarity with that woman and still vote for her. She’s truly a trashy human being.

Yeah, I would really like to see them either stop doing that or make it very clear in their email that you should only respond if you know the answer to the question.

I would highly recommend the recent Freakonomics Radio series about whaling. It’s Episodes 549-551 and the bonus episode from 2023-08-06. If you’re firmly against killing any living creature (or at least sentient creatures), I highly doubt it will change your mind (and I don’t think that it should or that it tries to), but I also think it is really fascinating learning about the history of the whaling industry and hearing the perspective of a modern whaler in the bonus episode. Putting aside the obvious ethical issues with killing sentient creatures, it’s interesting to consider things like whether there’s a sustainable level of whaling, what a sustainable quota would look like, and how much we’re in competition with certain whale species for harvesting fish as food for our own species. I personally appreciated how unbiased Freakonomics tried to be in their discussion of the topic.

Tell me you’re Gen Z or Alpha without telling me you’re Gen Z or Alpha.

If the Boston marathon bombing had happened within a year prior to this I might understand, but come on…

Ah, dang, yeah if you don’t have admin rights on your server I’m not sure there’s anything you can do manually 🫤

Are these bridge puppet users from 3rd party chat services? If so, I don’t know if it would mess anything up, but you might be able to edit those users in Synapse admin (assuming you have that set up). You might even be able to change avatars that way. I’d try it with a contact you don’t care about accidentally breaking first.

If it came out today, it might hit that sweet spot of being too edgy for liberal parents and too “woke” for conservatives

18 is old enough to give them a rifle.

Actually 17 with parental consent.