Sanyanov @ Sanyanov @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

439

Joined

2 yr. ago

An eel can only generate so much power, so essentially the voltage will drop so that the power will be lower.

600V at 0,1A will just turn to, say, 100V at 0,6A if the resistance between two points will be 1667 Ohm.

To keep voltage at 600V (and subsequently deliver 0,36A) you need a power source that can deliver 3,6 times more power.

In that sense, amperage is super important. We should always consider capabilities of the power source, this is big part of electrical grid engineering.

That will heavily depend on the surroundings, your body, and contact points.

Also, freshwater and saltwater eels approach it differently, with freshwater ones (the ones delivering those 600-800 volts) able to give out amperage of around 0,1A.

This may not seem like much, but it is actually enough to stun and paralyze a human, and this is exactly what we see here. If there's nobody to break the contact, the current will keep flowing for several more seconds, and then your heart will stop, with all the consequences it entails.

Touche

Mental Outlaw also has the great guide explaining the install step-by-step in a great detail

I just don't bother going for archinstall when regular installation "from scratch" takes 5 minutes (or 15, if you do it the first time). It is not scary and extremely simple, contrary to memes. Besides, it makes you understand the processes involved.

Archinstall is just a little, nice helper to shorten and simplify installation even more.

So precious to know people from various cultures pulled this prank on their kids

Meaty, throbbing, frighteningly-erect rest-of-the-world outlet

Not 3x more powerful, but rather having 3x higher voltage.

But still enough power to shock an adult human.

My condolences to the families.

Hope they'll figure out how to never make it happen again.

And yes, for God's sake, ban firearms.

Damn I imagined this

We need a movie about it

Why would I want to post anything on Gab, a far-right platform?

I hoped we'll keep on with sensible conversation.

Substack, on its part, is used by various authors and is absolutely not limited to Nazis.

I see.

It's not banning nazis directly causing banning non-offending pedophiles, it's banning people considered dangerous causing both, with Nazis just setting the precedent (because obviously they are bad, and there's little disagreement). Fedi is just one example where banning Nazis is not full stop. Other groups are banned too, sometimes without much consideration, and this happens on many different platforms - Tumblr, Discord, Facebook, and even daddy Elon's Xitter, to name a few.

This goes as part of my argument on why we need spaces with completely free speech. We cannot expect instance admins or even platform owners to be completely objective in their estimations of right and wrong, and we can't trust them to be unaffected by societal stereotypes.

Moreover, even in such an ideal scenario where they are fully objective, their userbase might think differently, forcing admins to take measures against various marginalized groups.

At that point, it seems to me like the only way out of this conundrum is having some platforms - not mainstream ones, mind you - allowing everything: platforms, from which positive, but initially rejected ideas can spread.

I'm saying that banning Nazis comes from public opinion and perception (which is correct to my knowledge), and that banning pedophiles comes from public opinion of just the same people (which is wrong as far as I know). Both groups (third is instances full of bots and spam) are heavily banned on the Fediverse, so it's not "some people's opinion" but rather, essentially, a policy for majority of instances.

This is to the point that the organized banning of groups that shouldn't be banned and hate towards groups that shouldn't be hated didn't stop, and without venues for free speech, we may never know that and keep hating and banning those we need to support to make this world a better place.

I'm talking specifically about instances with strong rules, either prohibiting any child imagery or only allowing drawings (which is just about any anti-contact place). Both types are heavily defederated from, and barely anyone makes a difference between that and literal child porn instances (which should be not just defederated, but seized by authorities and admins brought to justice)

I've updated third bullet point in accordance with your comment, thank you.

I see your point, and this is exactly why I say this shouldn't happen on mainstream media - this should always be part of platforms one goes to in look for controversies.

We should not allow nor tolerate Nazism or other things like that on mainstream Lemmy instances, for example.

However, we have to set some place for everyone to have a voice. In many places, me calling for communism, for example, will be met with an instant permaban, with people saying I advocate gulags and bloody wars (I do not). And I always wish to have a place to voice my ideas, because I think they're right, regardless of the sentiment that may push mainstream platforms one direction or the other. But that means you'll end up needing a platform allowing everyone - and it should exist as well.

Those are just two systems, and both are necessary for us to prosper.

I'll just give an example.

Recently, when discussing defederated instances, I've seen an interesting picture: people cheered defederating instances of Nazis and...pedophiles.

An average person would see no issue here. Right, one more terrible group banned! Take those perverts down! But there's a catch that I discovered quite a while ago, and it's a rabbit hole like no other.

• First, pedophile is not a child molester. We equate the two wrongly all the time, and those words became synonymous.
• Second, pedophilia is an immutable trait; unlike with Nazis, no one can decide to stop being one.
• Third, many of the pedophile instances, including those massively banned, actually feature anti-contact pedophiles, i.e. those specifically dedicated to never ever touch or interact with a child in any inappropriate way; said instances also generally prohibit any forms of child sexual imagery or only allow fictional drawings. And early research suggests it actually helps them. We brought up some reads and scientific articles on the matter throughout discussion. Conclusion: there are uncertainties, but it seems to work in protecting kids and reducing suicide rates.

And when you see something like that, you clearly understand that there's a lot of things in the world people still heavily misunderstand, while feeling certain about the position they didn't have 5 minutes to research on, and that people are already on the slippery slope, banning groups they didn't have time and effort to comprehend. And there's a lot more of that than just pedophiles, this is just a very bright example that will probably make most of those reading this uncomfortable and will illustrate the concept best.

Also, I'm full aware that most people will likely choose to downvote this, not comment anything and end up thinking I support child molesters (hell no, if you support child molestation go get some mental health asap, fucking kids is very bad)

It all depends on the nature and goals of the platform.

It's one thing to create a platform for positivity and brave new world (in a good sense). It's good we have those, and this probably should be the approach of mainstream media.

It's another to create a truly free speech platform. You can't claim free speech and then ideologically ban someone, even if that's someone bad. And you should have such venues - for among 9 terrible ideas (like Nazism) lies one that is underappreciated and misunderstood, and wrongly considered to be bad. Feminism was considered to be bad. LGBT people were considered to be bad etc. etc. And if you start banning some ideas, it leaves you with carte blanche to ban everyone you don't like, including people who actually promote healthy and positive ideas and values, but are misunderstood.

Only leaving the first option means starting a circlejerk where no good new idea has a chance to flourish.

As per Nazis, homophobes and other people with terrible ideas - you really can't overcome it by just pulling it under the rug. We need to develop patience and advance our rhetorics to counter those, and to quickly seed that grain of truth from which all their misconceptions get to shatter. That's literally the only way to combat ideology - by exposing how deeply wrong and flawed it is, and providing arguments.

Will there be people with no reason following such ideologies out of spite and emotion? Sure. But by stepping against them on an equal footing, we can show the rest how stupid their arguments are, rven on a dedicated free speech platform.

Because Nazism is not bad simply because we decided it to be so. It is a faulty ideology meant to distract people from real sources of their struggle while expending millions of lives in the process.

It removes critical understanding of economic processes by the masses, fooling them into believing the issues are caused by some nation and not their own elites - something that is well-researched and obvious to almost every other modern individual.

In order to retain people's decisiveness amongst deep economic crisis directly caused by application of such ideology (due to rampant expropriation, paranoid protectionism, economic mismanagement and removal of active economic participants), Nazi government always needs to wage a war - this way it can blame its faults on its enemies. And war inevitably comes with millions of deaths, deaths directly attributed to the ideology cause it can't run without them.

Finally, it's an ideology based on hate to a group with an immutable property - it ignores the differences all of us have and tries to attribute a certain property to an entire nation - something we know isn't true - and then exterminate people based on what is known to be wrong association.

No matter how you look at it, under any rational look, Nazism is just plain stupid, and in its stupidity it produces extreme and unnecessary suffering.

With all that being said, again, I don't think we should make platforms like Substack mainstream and we should moderate general-topic places to exclude Nazis and other harmful actors. But we sure as hell need them to be present.

Because the only thing worse than Nazis allowed to influence us is the tyranny of subjective good.

Thanks for the heads up!