ChemicalRascal

The Looker is fantastic. I was particularly disappointed to learn that Blow took it as an insult, though.

Solar wind is not going to just yeet stuff around like that. It’ll have some sort of impact, but it’s not like, you know, actual wind.

Whisked off into space by what, exactly?

A large swarm of satellites, forming an adjustable solar shade, sitting around L1 for Earth-Sun is likely the best approach we would have. The swarm wouldn’t be in a geosynchronous orbit, though, but instead a heliosynchronous one.

Good stuff, Georgia. Especially with it being unanimous. Though given Trump’s demonstrated typical approach, I can’t imagine the rebuke from the court will prevent him from making similar attempts in the future.

Realistically? Something a lot like what we currently have, but with everyone having access to prompt healthcare, living in comfort. A focus on community and cooperation being more dominant in the culture, rather than competition and comparison.

Exactly this. On Reddit, you would end up with stuff like r/TrueStarWars and such as a result of bad mods moderating badly — but those communities would have a harder time taking off due to the name being less searchable, and individuals needing to be “in the know” about why one sub has “true” out the front.

With everyone being able to take the same community name, just across different instances, there’s a potential for a better, more competitive process to take place instead. It won’t be perfect — @starwars is going to be in a much more immediately advantaged position than, say, @starwars — but in theory the playing field is closer to being level.

I just learned to accept that I am weird and filthy.

It’s not a technical split, but an ethicsl split.

It’s less than an ethical split, actually. If A does not federate Threads, but B does, Threads still does not meaningfully impact the experience of users on A. No defederation between A and B is needed for A to maintain their desired experience.

As such, there isn’t a split. There’s an ethical difference, but the impact is negligible, and thus it doesn’t require disassociation, which would be what an “ethical split” would be.

Until recently the fediverse took pride in the fact that they watched out for eachother. If tgere was an instance that didn’t moderate nazis, they defederated or at least muted it.

Or if they were Beehaw, and the other instance got too big. lemmy.ml soft-blocked HTTP requests from the KbinBot. And so on and so forth. Add in all the drama that went down in Mastodon between instances. You’re painting a very rosy picture of a tidy, well-behaved Fediverse when in reality it’s been pretty messy.

Not that this is relevant, as mentioned above.

Now, that the instance in question is run by a corporation with a history of bad moderation, desinforamation and hate-speech they get the benefit of doubt, because (…)

Again, this isn’t relevant in the context of causing a split. Let’s assume Threads is full of Nazis. 100% of users are Nazis. No! 200% of Threads users are Nazis!

None of those Nazis will be able to get content onto A in the earlier example, at least not from within Threads. If A wants to block Threads, they can just do that. Blocklists don’t have to be common between other instances, it literally doesn’t matter.

Thus [Meta] will not let the rest of the fediverse become competition.

Meta does not have a way to impact Fediverse projects without the consent of the project they attempt to impact. They cannot “stop” Mastodon or Lemmy or Kbin in any way. It’s FOSS.

Why exactly do you believe that a partial mass-defederation of Threads would “split” the fediverse? That’s not how interactions between instances works.

She really struggles to maintain basic decorum, doesn’t she? I can’t understand what her constituents see in her.

There’s enough women out there that sending one as a delegate to a women’s empowerment conference is not going to require pulling one out of a meeting about Ukraine armaments.

There’s actually a lot of women around. So, so many. It’s actually a little intimidating just how many women there are.

Well, her being a cop is self-evident, but let’s review the entire comment:

She’s a racist, classist noeliberal and a fucking cop (or close enough).

Her political career has been chock-full of attacking public institutions like schools, protecting white-collar crime which destroyed countless lives, protecting child molesters in the church, implementing policy against the poor, and protecting prison slavery. I’m not sure where exactly the confusion lies.

I would argue that, frankly, her being a neoliberal should be explained, for the sake of discussion, but her being racist and classist should be. The details of her career being “chock-full” of various acts should be coupled with specific citations to reporting of those acts. And so on.

I don’t like Harris, mind, but the comment being discussed could have established its evidence in a more convincing manner.