JoBo @ JoBo @feddit.uk

Posts

22

Comments

1,095

Joined

2 yr. ago

Christians are not a homogeneous blob of identity. As you may or may not have guessed, these are not the far-right Christians who believe Trump is the Second Coming of Christ. They are not responsible for what other people who identify as Christians have done or said, and they are entitled to change their minds about things they themselves have done or said.

They are fully entitled to speak out against the weaponisation of their religion and good luck to those who are courageous enough to do so.

1. Because that is not a decision Lemmy can make; thousands of different instances running Lemmy can choose to do whatever its admins choose to do.
2. Because (AFAIK) Lemmy instances cannot federate with Threads anyway.

For anybody looking to avoid ads on Lemmy, it seems like direct federation with Threads is not a good idea currently.

Can Lemmy federate with Threads?

I can follow Lemmy communities from Mastodon (but don't because it just fills your feed with an avalanche of out-of-context posts).

I can't follow anyone on Mastodon from Lemmy (and while I think it is, or should be, possible from kBin, that doesn't seem to work well yet).

So how can a Lemmy instance federate with Threads and how would their micro-blog posts turn up on Lemmy?

I'm not remotely bothered by federation on Mastodon because there is no algorithm pushing crap on me there. I'll get what I follow and nothing else.

The Fediverse is not large enough to replace Twitter/Reddit (for breadth and depth of content) and it is unlikely to become large enough any time soon.

Fortunately, Mastodon does not push an algorithmic feed on me so I can follow people I want to hear from on Threads without having to put up with the bullshit that comes from being on Threads.

I recognise that the lack of moderation on Threads means that instances which do federate may be faced with a lot of extra work and not all instances will be up for that, and that's totally fair.

But it would be good if there was at least one instance which allowed access to people on Threads without having to make an account with Meta.

FWIW it's not a coincidence that Threads didn't make federation possible until after they'd found a legal way to launch in the EU. They knew that if they federated first, the Fediverse would get a lot of EU users who would otherwise have joined Threads. I don't think the entire Fediverse should cut itself off from Threads when many of its users might also like access to the feed without the Meta bullshit piled on top.

I'm going to be a pedant and note that recorded history is only ~6k years old, for those parts of the world that had by then started writing shit down in non-perishable form (at the time, or at least before the spoken memories were lost forever). And much shorter for others, obv.

This question is difficult to frame accurately, but "events from BCE" might work, if you want examples that occurred multiple thousands of years ago.

Yes, that and increasing conditionality of benefits (which were originally designed to place a floor under which no employer could sink).

Minimum wage is a neoliberal policy, necessitated by the fact that capital would happily starve its own workforce to death and only then wonder why it could not find any more workers to exploit.

The Scandinavian countries are, I think, the only wealthy countries left with no minimum wage. Because sectoral bargaining still works there (hence Musk's travails in Sweden).

I haven't read this report but any research like this needs to also look at the proportion of the workforce who are at or close to the minimum wage, which has steadily increased since 1999. It has undoubtedly improved things for the most easily exploited workers but it has also meant that wages in general have pancaked downwards. Overall inequality has increased even as minimum wage improved things for the very lowest paid. This headline is reporting the good news while ignoring the bad.

"Someone else will do evil if I don't agree to do evil so I might as well do evil myself" is a bullshit argument. And your point is directly addressed in the article:

By resigning publicly, I am saddened by the knowledge that I likely foreclose a future at the State Department. I had not initially planned a public resignation. Because my time at State had been so short — I was hired on a two-year contract — I did not think I mattered enough to announce my resignation publicly. However, when I started to tell colleagues of my decision to resign, the response I heard repeatedly was, “Please speak for us.”

It depends.

1. Is she the leader of a powerful group of cronies in the office that had been the subject of complaints about inappropriate sexist and creepy behaviour for many years, with all complaints dismissed because the offenders held all the power?
2. When you complained about it, did she insist that it was consensual and that you were lying when you said it was not?
3. Did she use the company website to publish statements calling you a liar, including threats to prosecute you for lying?

If a boss forced an unwanted kiss (and bear hug lift) on an employee, and then insisted that it was consensual and that the employee was lying when they said it was not, tried to coerce them into saying they were lying, had other senior people declare that they were lying, and used the company website to declare that they were lying, after a years-long dispute with this and dozens of other employees complaining of sexism and creepy behaviour endorsed by this boss...

I'm not a fan of carceral solutions but I'd certainly like to see a lifetime ban on working in that industry, a lifetime ban on holding any position of authority over others without supervision, and massive monetary compensation to every complainant.

And if the criminal justice system in its current carceral context magically became laser-focused on rich people abusing their power instead of poor people trying to survive, that would be an excellent start, no?

Yes. Did you forget how to quote your whole post?

You stated it very much as a set of rules that should exist. Twice.

Who do you imagine is (or should be) making these rules for the Fediverse?

'We' didn't. Hence his being sued for it.

This is a semantic objection which completely ignores context and scope.

The 'gag order' bars Trump from using his platform to intimidate witnesses and employees of the court.

Maybe we need to look at what France and Germany are doing with their system and copy them.

They're funding theirs.

The Tories (and Labour) are trying to privatise ours. Which obviously won't make it any cheaper because idle shareholders will be siphoning off a hefty chunk into the tax havens that neither the Tories nor Labour will shut down. In the meantime, they're pulling the same trick they did with British Rail: underfund it until it's easy to kill off and sell cheap to their rich backers so they can charge us more for less.

She was born Ronna Romney. Whether or not she chose to marry a McD for the lols, I couldn't say.

If you are forced to use them:

1. Do not use the app
2. Find what you want on the website
3. Copy the description with a reasonable amount of detail
4. Paste description into your less evil search engine of choice
5. Click through and buy

That way, Amazon has to pay the search engine.

That sounds lush, tbf.

Where are you getting cream from? There's no cream in Hasselback potatoes?

This center is intended to support those states with those laws, it's not bringing in any new federal laws wrt gun control.