It 100% works as long as you are making steady effort towards gaining the skills you need.

I mean on this one issue maybe. Not on anything else.

You could probably find an issue where Hitler was left if you look hard enough. That doesn’t make him a leftist overall.

But that’s already the case? Swing states get to decide national policy far more than other states. Giving proportional representation would at least ensure that the states with a bigger voice have more citizens. Citizens in small states would still have an equal voice, unlike the current system.

I think universal equality in political power is far more compatible with federalism than the current system.

Yeah that could be as well. I saw an article recently about how some neo-nazis were attaching themselves to the Palestinian liberation movement to try to seduce angry people into adopting their ideology. Important to be wary of these tactics. Though I’m not sure who would be naive enough to accept Alex Jones as an ally uncritically.

Why would ditching the electoral college require dismantling state governments? That makes no sense.

Is this a ploy to up his brand with nazis or something? I can’t think of any other reason he would do this. He’s obviously not someone who cares about morality or truth.

Sometimes but not always. Dominant males especially can be dangerously aggressive.

Interesting article—is this person saying that they or their colleagues had the idea for Reddit and they had the founders implement it?

Also, the second half of the article is pretty baffling. What ideas has Steve Huffman brought to the table?

My sense is that Reddit today is mostly the same as it ever was. Sure, there have been some tweaks: it has a sleeker interface, better algorithms, can natively host media now. But those are not really new ideas, just obvious extensions of what the site was used for. All those employees have to find something to work on.

The only thing objectively better about today’s Reddit compared to the past is that having a larger user base allows for more niche communities to exist. Otherwise most of the big changes the company has tried to enforce have been flops or largely neutral.

Like I said, I understand the reasoning but it’s not morally acceptable. And I think it’s important to point that out.

Like it might be rational for a death row inmate to steal a nuclear bomb and demand a pardon by threatening to blow up a city.

But there is still a moral case that it is wrong to do so.

Eh, the comical insanity of antisemitism is still worthy of mockery.

I can understand it but treating the hostages as merely bargaining chips ignores that they are innocent civilians caught in this idiotic conflict through no fault of their own. Hamas has no right to use the hostages as a tool to protect themselves.

The real issue with this ceasefire is that linking the ceasefire to the release of the hostages tacitly endorses continued atrocities by IDF if and when the demand for release is ignored.

deleted by creator

I’m not exactly sure what you mean by this but there are many different instances with many different rules. I’m sure you can find one that is close to your viewpoints.

Personally I don’t think it’s important to be exactly in line with your instance but I do find a subset of Lemmy.ml users noxious enough that I try to minimize my interactions with their instance.

Free sharing of information, particularly publicly funded information is not theft. That is all.

I doubt most users care about the IPO directly. What does it matter if the platform is owned by a few scumbags or many?

But as we know, pressure to attain profitability may push Reddit to introduce increasingly user-hostile features. This is where the possibility for the next revolt lies.

I mean I am completely unsurprised by their misbehavior, I’m just slightly more optimistic about our ability to resist them.

That said, the one danger I can see is Meta gaining more authority over the activitypub developers. That is probably something worth being vigilant about.

Is there a way we prevent it becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy though? My concern is that armed groups are more likely to escalate things, foment conflict, scare moderates into supporting the fascists, and give them propaganda tools to justify crackdowns. The similarity to 1930’s Germany rings true but doesn’t imply any specific solution. See the Reichstag fire for resistance that played into fascist hands.

I’m open to this hedge your bets argument but for it to make sense the benefit needs to be bigger and more likely than the cost. I’m not sure I see that yet. And I have a natural skepticism of violence because many people get carried along with it even when in retrospect it was unhelpful or even harmful.

Hilarious. I actually witnessed this online when someone tried to “well actually” another user and it turned out that user was the author of the paper they cited.

Probably just the totality of human influences on wildfires. This can include a wide range of activities and factors including climate change, forest preservation or cutting, changes in wild or domestic mammal herbivory, accidental ignition events, controlled burns, irrigation or diversion of streams, damming rivers, invasive species introductions, etc.

Just interesting how parties can migrate over time I guess. A little is not surprising but my understanding is that social democrats were originally born from the socialist movement so they had to cover a lot of ground to get all the way to center right.