Melmi @ melmi @lemmy.blahaj.zone

Posts

1

Comments

246

Joined

2 yr. ago

I'm not a lawyer so this is just my layperson's read, but looking at the actual law it seems like in order for it to actually count as "deceptive" it needs to be presented as real. If there's a disclaimer saying it's fake, it wouldn't be illegal under this law, so it seems like satire isn't the main target.

One use for wireguard in a container is that if you're using other containers on the same host you can use container magic to route the traffic of specific containers through the wireguard tunnel, while other containers bypass the tunnel.

I think your take is reductive. Gender isn't about stereotypes. I'm sure that for many trans people, part of their trans discovery was not feeling like a stereotypical member of their sex, but there's more to it than that. You can say that gender relates to a lot of things. Gender is ultimately an internal experience that means different things to different people, and isn't necessarily related to identifying or not identifying with any given stereotype.

Bioessentialism in turn reduces people to genitals, and sort of refuses to address intersex people because something something "outliers don't count". At best it says sure, you can dress up however you want, but it's super important that everyone know What You Really Are so they can put you in a box and appropriately segregate society.

People posting blobfish always makes me sad. Poor things don't actually look like that...

It's like it aliens took humans into space and our corpses got all bloated from the lack of pressure and then the aliens laugh at our corpses and assume that's what humans always look like...

I don't think "identifying with social stereotypes" is really an accurate representation of what being trans is.

Sure, there are some people who transition and identify as stereotypical members of their desired gender, but there are also people who transition and are gender nonconforming after their transition, but still identify as binary trans.

Identifying with social stereotypes also doesn't account for physical dysphoria, which is very real for a lot of trans folks. Some trans folks change little about their presentation when they transition but still want hormones and/or surgery.

I kinda of lean towards the idea of "private accounts" being a bad idea as a result, just because it creates a false sense of security. But I'm not in the target demographic so idk

The issue is that if you don't default to federation, it becomes essentially impossible for new instances to join the fediverse. A potential new instance would have to go around to every single existing instance and ask to be allowlisted, which is onerous for both the new instances and for the large server admins who would be getting tons of requests. It would also essentially kill small-scale selfhosting as a result.

I've noticed this too and it's so sad because I love em dashes, but whenever anyone uses them it puts me on guard. I still use them from time to time, but I'm more self-conscious about it now

Yeahhh I didn't really think through how I worded that one, sorry. I was trying to say that Ada is essentially the face of enforcement and I haven't seen you going out and banning people, but that hardly means there's only one admin.

I really appreciate you keeping this place running for us!

Most people earn their currency in-game, which would make it awkward to have a real-world conversion attached to everything—especially when there's no way to pull it out so it's not really meaningful.

It's already hard enough getting people to undock and risk their internet spaceships, it'd be even harder if there were little real-world price estimates attached to everything.

A better solution would be to attach the prices only to PLEX (the premium currency), since that's what maps directly to real-world money and would be what you're spending your money on. They could also post the going exchange rate for euro to isk on the market itself without having to attach price tags to every individual item.

My point is that rules do nothing to "control corruption" as you put it.

In an instance like this where there's only one active admin, the rules are fundamentally just a courtesy to the users. The owner can just do whatever they want.

It doesn't ultimately matter what their rules are. Anti corruption laws exist IRL so they can be enforced by the government on its own members, but when the "government" is one person what are they gonna do, say "welp I made a rule against corruption, guess I gotta stop being corrupt." The very concept of controls is silly.

Ada owns this space, so she decides how to run it. I like that because it means there's no room for arguments over what's technically within the rules or not. Are you transphobic/potentially harmful to the safe space? You're out.

Writing down a million rules to explain Ada's internal logic for banning people would be ridiculously infeasible because it's such a personal thing. But for people who like the way that Ada runs things, it's a nice space. Anyways, I don't particularly want "polite transphobes" here who are capable of following the rules if written out but would be horribly transphobic otherwise.

EDIT: what even is "corruption" in this context? I feel like your government analogy doesn't apply very well to this situation

Laws need to be stringent because governments involve lots of people, and people's livelihoods and well-being are on the line.

No one's livelihood is on the line here, worst case scenario they get banned and then they find a new server.

There's only two (really one) admins, and they enforce the safe space according to their own judgement. This isn't a government, it's a Lemmy server. Fleshing out rules would only invite rules lawyering which bigots love and is a headache for little practical gain.

There's no need to "control corruption" or prevent "enforcers not understanding the rules" when the person making the rules is also the person enforcing them.

A big part of IPv4's persistence I think is that people insist that IPv6 is complicated, but then refuse to learn it or think outside their IPv4-brain. It's just different enough that it's easier to stay in v4, even if it requires a million hackjob fixes to keep around.

If anything is to blame for that, it's the lack of momentum behind IPv6. We're out of IPv4, so NAT is inevitable, and IPv6 doesn't have enough inertia for single-stack to be viable (certainly wouldn't be described as "no drama" at least).

The brigading wasn't from the same person who made the pull request, and happened three years later. The thread isn't even that toxic as far as GitHub threads can get.

It's not a great example of what you're talking about.

Yeah, fair enough. To my mind I guess I don't think of array indexes as an example of actual zero based numbering, simply a quirk of how pointers work. I don't see why one starting from zero has anything to do with the other starting from zero. They're separate things in my head. Interestingly, the article you linked does mention this argument:

Referencing memory by an address and an offset is represented directly in computer hardware on virtually all computer architectures, so this design detail in C makes compilation easier, at the cost of some human factors. In this context using "zeroth" as an ordinal is not strictly correct, but a widespread habit in this profession.

That said, I suppose I still use normal one-based numbering because that's how I'm used to everything else working.

Indexes start from zero because they're memory offsets, but array[0] is still the first element because it's an ordinal number, not an offset. It's literally counting each element of the array. It lines up with the cardinality—you wouldn't say ['A', 'B', 'C'] has two elements, despite array[2] being the last element.