I wouldn’t say no other. Rich assholes probably also make a lot of personal enemies. But there have to be many thousands of people with a deadly grudge against someone whose business is all about denying lifesaving coverage to people who dutifully paid the premiums that boosted their bottom lines.
I think this would be great as like a 15 minute YouTube skit.
The post notably included the statement:
that’s not the kind of thing that should happen without the community agreeing to it
With no voices in support in the original post and currently the only two voices in support here being the mods themselves.
I’m in the US and was specifically drawn toward European instance because my (admittedly very lightly informed) understanding is Europe just has better laws on internet freedoms. IIRC a US-based Mastodon instance (Mastodon maybe?) was seized by cops at one point for pretty questionable reasons. Our legal system gives far too much power to police and corporations to enact spurious searches and punishment.
If promising some more progressive policy was a clear winner, why wouldn’t they do it? The answer I generally see implied or stated is that the dem establishment doesn’t want that policy, but that isn’t really an adequate explanation, because politicians are perfectly familiar with dishonesty. If supporting some progressive policy they didn’t like would win them power, they’d just promise it and then just not do that thing upon getting elected.
Because their personal motivations are not “maximize the chances for a Democratic win”, but preserve the power of themselves and their allies with money and influence. If these policies become a centerpiece of the election and broadly popularized, it becomes dangerous to ignore it and advances the saliency regardless of the outcome, pushing it closer to someone actually doing it. A campaign that says “the rich are abusing workers to fill their pockets and the government should tax their wealth until there are no billionaires and provide benefits to the workers” is dangerous to the rich people, even if its initially proposed by someone with no intention of following through.
The people you want to blame aren’t here in a politics community. Maybe a few posters here did a protest vote, probably in a safe state where it didn’t matter, but most people here voted. The people who didn’t vote (in numbers meaningful to winning) weren’t sitting down to think about what the world would be like in each outcome and then saying “eh, it’s fine either way”, they were marginal voters who just didn’t really think it was important because politicians either don’t care about them or don’t follow through on promises. They’re just going to check out when you call them or the other politician names, because it’s a tiring endeavor that they don’t care about. You definitely have people in your life that say “they’re not political” and check out as soon as politics is brought up. You’re never going to reach those voters by expressing your disdain in a forum for politically engaged people, the only way to get to them is to actually motivate them to vote en masse with legit campaigns to inspire them that their lives will get better if they take this action.
Trump doing things to women whether they like it or not is kind of his whole deal.
I don’t trust it because there’s no believable plan to make it commercially viable, so it’s just going to end up defunct or enshittified. Mastodon is up front, it’s a volunteer service that you can either pay for or roll the dice on the instance staying up. And there’s a built-in way to move on when one goes down.
BlueSky is a B-corp, which theoretically means they can say their mission takes priority if sued by an investor in court, but doesn’t in any way require them to make it the primary goal, and the reality of funding and money and investors means that’s almost certainly not going to happen.
Ah, I misread the quoted image. I will edit my earlier replies to let people know my assumption was incorrect.
Despite the end result being the death of everything within a single lifespan and the eventual destruction of the entire Earth in the new term future, I was surprised it would not be more immediately destructive. 1 cm/s sure sounded like a pretty fast expansion.
Edit: I misread the posted image, OP is suggesting rules to filter new accounts, not with a new account themselves.
Nothing said why he got banned, but he got banned with a brand new account. The new account isn’t the ban reason itself, but it’s the reason the mods would be on a hair trigger for just the whiff of a problem.
Edit: I misread the posted image, OP is suggesting rules to filter new accounts, not with a new account themselves.
A brand new account getting banned tells us almost nothing about whether the ban was warranted. Brand new accounts talking about automod are either evading a ban or have history on their main account they don’t want the mods to see. These might be horrible power-abusing mods, but even if there wasn’t a larger history not seen here, banning a brand new account just because the vibes seem off is a-ok in my book.
A license that requires source. And since then there have been many different licenses, all with the same requirement. Giving someone a binary for free and saying they’re allowed to edit the hex codes and redistribute it doesn’t mean it’s open source. A license to use and modify is necessary but not sufficient for something to be open source. You need to provide the source.
“Open source” is not a license, it’s a description. Things can be free with no license restrictions and still not be “open source”.
A freely available and unencumbered binary (e.g., the model weights) isn’t the same thing as open-source. The source is the data. You can’t rebuild the model without the data, nor can you verify that it wasn’t intentionally biased or crippled.
It’s a fine sample size. That’s a normal national poll. A poll of 1,000 people has a margin of error (from random sampling) of 3%. There are other errors than random chance that could bias a poll, but random chance is what sampling size is generally managing.
I didn’t ask whether you thought they were diverse, I asked whether you thought they would ever be given the same consideration in the name of “diversity of thought”. We both know they won’t.
Diversity of thought is very important
So she’s going to appoint a Democratic Socialist? No? Someone from Sunrise then? No? A Palestinian-American Democrat? They couldn’t even get 2 minutes at the convention. How about a BLM activist? She marched for that cause, surely that’s some diversity she’d want to have represented. Not that either? Hm.
Maybe this isn’t about diversity of thought and instead about the doomed Democratic instinct to try to coopt the center-right, which according to the theory of centrism will make them win forever! Just not any of the times they’ve already tried it.
Shafik had a no-confidence vote from her faculty and effectively caused the chaos at both her own campus and others across the nation with her initial heavy handed response. The others just had the naivete to treat a political witch hunt like a good faith forum on school administration practices.
Comrades, together we can outbribe the 1%!