Well, when we get into more technical bits and less big ideas or structures, I think the idea of destruction and creation can become a bit more absurdist sounding.
I think I'd say that adding the sticks of RAM does 'destroy' the computer as it was to make it have more RAM. It functionally no longer offers the same functionality (it can offer more).
And if we were to think about it in a software project sense (and this is getting a bit further from the hardware example) - adding a feature is an additive function but to accomplish that, you are sacrificing some of the simplicity that was there before the addition.
Is creation the act of bringing forth something that did not before exist, or does creation include creativity?
Yes - it can include creativity as it can include evil.
Creativity can be expressed through these acts of maintenance, nurturing, and care, all of which set at odds of destruction.
Sure it can, that said - I don't think maintenance, nurturing or care are at odds with destruction.
Maintenance can require the destruction of other ideas. For example, if you try to build a society built on love, is it wrong to destroy bigotry? That's not to say that the people expressing these ideas need to be killed but rather that the idea of bigotry must be destroyed from their mind for tolerance to take its place.
Nurturing can be born out of destruction. For example, is Beehaw not born out of the destruction of other platforms? We try to nurture a different culture but I can hardly think it would exist without destruction happening in the first place.
Caring can bring people to destruction. For example, is it not care that makes us want to destroy authorities that harm our loved ones? Is it not care that makes us want to destroy the police system as it exists today?
So the obvious potential confusion here is in the case where I changed a sandcastle how would you decribe it?
I think all 3 are examples of destruction and creation. I think destruction often has a negative connotation. I think this is why we like to use the word "change" : to describe both destruction and creation at the same time.
“I created a sandcastle” is actually "I destroyed the smooth beach to create a sandcastle"
“I changed a sandcastle” is actually "I destroyed the sandcastle as it was to create a new one"
“I destroyed a sandcastle” is actually "I destroyed the sandcastle to see the pile of sand that it was"
Destruction entails that what existed no longer does. Creation entails creating something that didn't exist.
I personally think it's likely. Facebook is one of the companies that will be targeted by EU's DMA and since they co-authored this standard, it seems likely they'd want to use it to respect the DMA. If Facebook uses it, others will adopt it because of their sheer control over messaging services.
I haven’t used a non-link-aggregator forum in a long time, so I might be biased; but I don’t personally like the style of them. I prefer the information density of Lemmy/ Reddit/ Tildes style link-aggregator forums. The ability to have multiple independent comment threads for each link definitely helps encourage discussions (in my opinion).
And there is something to be said for if people only used downvotes on incorrect information, spam, or rudeness, the Beehaw admins would probably find themselves less overloaded with work.
I think that while this is true, it would also invite for more deresponsabilization about the spaces we make and who we allow in these spaces. I generally think it's best for those things to be reported because in most cases - we don't actually want people like that in our communities and simply hiding it means that they silently remain.
Was this something of a hindsight is 20/20 situation, wherein with more consideration, something else may have been adopted?
We considered many other problems when in the inception phases and had initially decided to make our own - this did not turn out as we had wanted and so we came back to the drawing board.
Or has it been banking on some optimism in federated communities becoming the new norm?
I would certainly say that some of us have rose tinted glasses for federated communities but it's certainly not unanimous.
As for whether or not we made the right choice, I don't know. I do genuinely think there are big problems when it comes to Lemmy's lack of focus on moderation and some of these are compounded by broken federation.
We can try to rationalize it, sure but I think that doing that generally is a disservice. I don't want to make decisions based on this severity scale. The people who suffer from these problems are all equally deserving of help.
I mean maybe calling it evil is part of the problem ?
I call it evil because it is intentional and premeditated.
There are degrees in everything. Punching somebody is less bad than killing somebody.
Trying to put everything on degrees is bound to show ignorance and imply that certain things are more acceptable than others.
I don't want to hurt people with my ignorance and I do not want to tell someone that what they experienced is less bad than something else. They are bad and we'll leave it at that.
Btw its totally humane because we invented the shit.
I am working with this definition : "Characterized by kindness, mercy, or compassion". There is a difference between human-made and humane.
No. I think that it would still be bad if it were self-use because it is ultimately doing something that someone doesn't consent to.
If you were to use this on yourself or someone consenting, I see no issues there - be kinky all you want.
Consent is the core foundation for me.
The reason why imagining someone is different is that it is often less intentional - thoughts are not actions.
Drawing someone to be similar to someone you know is very intentional. Even worse, there is a high likely chance that if you are drawing someone you know naked, you likely never asked for their consent because you know you wouldn't get it.
![Lionir [he/him]](https://beehaw.org/pictrs/image/a8975c5a-48a1-4158-8740-699f82a00c2e.webp?format=webp&thumbnail=128)
Well, when we get into more technical bits and less big ideas or structures, I think the idea of destruction and creation can become a bit more absurdist sounding.
I think I'd say that adding the sticks of RAM does 'destroy' the computer as it was to make it have more RAM. It functionally no longer offers the same functionality (it can offer more).
And if we were to think about it in a software project sense (and this is getting a bit further from the hardware example) - adding a feature is an additive function but to accomplish that, you are sacrificing some of the simplicity that was there before the addition.
Does that make sense?