I believe the VP only becomes “acting President” and doesn’t assume the actual office until sworn in by a proper authority (usually the Chief Justice of SCOTUS but I believe contingency plans exist). So it would be interesting to figure out when the immunity attaches.
my point is that “if there’s an obstruction, stop” means these cars are going to be stopping and requiring human intervention all the time. That’s semi autonomous at best.
I don’t know if you’ve encountered intransigent geese in your driving adventures, but the only way to deal with them is to slowly drive through the flock until they move out of your way.
fully autonomous cars are never going to happen without major changes to our roads. we’d be better off investing in more busses and trains.
I realized self-driving on roads is impossible for so-called when someone pointed out what human drivers do when there’s like a flock of geese camped out in the middle of the road.
We know that we should slowly move forward until they get out of the way, including bonking then with the car (gently). Do we want cars deciding that some obstruction in the road is “ok” to hit? I don’t. So what’s the solution? Something other than pure autonomous self driving.
We can probably have some very high level driver assist. Maybe.
hey look buddy I’ve got some amazing advice for OP over here but I had another OP call me 10 minutes ago asking for the exact same advice so I’m gonna need you to make a decision right away.
Well to be fair if we just go full ham with crypto mining and so called AI, we’ll belch enough GHGs into the atmosphere that the actual climate apocalypse will come within 20 years or so, wiping out most of human so called civilization, which will put the climate on a path to resetting over the next couple hundred thousand years.
Solved!
Pulling the ladder up behind you is something that happens pretty often in human history.
That’s not to say it’s intrinsic to us or destined to happen. But “hurt people hurt people” is probably what causes that to manifest.
In certain circumstances I bet most if not all of us would do it, too. A full life raft will swamp and kill everyone aboard if one more person gets on, for example. If there’s a guy trying to force his way on, what should the people on the boat do?
There’s a fair amount of that misguided belief among some anti immigrant movements: “we’re full” or equivalent.
Those poor people spending time only on HB for four years, never going anywhere else, never finding 4/8chan, never even finding reddit…
Is your question why a propaganda operation focused on disrupting or presidential elections would “go live” 18-ish months before the presidential election?
And are you asking if I have specific evidence that they’re trolls? Or that the governments I’ve listed have troll farms? Or that specifically HB is specifically rife with trolls from this governments’ farms? Because I definitely don’t have specific evidence. Just the historical evidence of (attempted) general interference from those countries in our previous elections.
I think HB and some of the other groups are mostly trolls or Russian, Chinese, Iranian, North Korean, or aligned operatives trying to gas up trolls or wannabe trolls.
There are definitely some well meaning Americans and others who get suckered into the bullshit tornado that is those sites. They are definitely worth saving if we can. But it’s hard. They ban and block anyone with a dissenting voice no matter how calmly presented.
If someone calls me insane, the response that proves them wrong is a reasonable, chill response at most. The actual sane thing to do is ignore them or make a joke about the claim.
Just like if someone calls me weird, the response that proves I’m not weird is to say, “hahaha, sure, whatever” or “so what?” The response that would prove their point is along the lines of, “I’m not weird, you’re weird” or “they’re not calling me weird, they’re calling my associate weird.”
I have it on pretty good authority that everyone who likes having sex with humans likes female boobs. And plump round asses. It’s some deeply ingrained evolutionary stuff.
Doesn’t mean a gay guy is gonna go straight because of some nice tits, but he can appreciate them erotically.
Hmmm maybe we should ignore #1 and focus on #5 then
This is Zuck’s characterisation. No direct quotes. No attachments (that I’ve seen). He calls it pressure. He says they wanted to censor “satire & humor.” In fact this BS letter is what the original article quoted.
If Mastodon wins out in the long run the only reason will be persistence.
All these other “like Twitter but ______” micro blogging or whatever sites only stay viable while they’re profitable.
If Bluesky or Threads become (net) unprofitable, they’ll die. Mastodon is already unprofitable, so that can’t kill it.
I think we could compete with #1 just by word of mouth.
For #2 some person or group needs to develop a Mastodon app (FOSS obviously) that has a “just do this part for me” option, probably automatically enabled.
#3 is on us. We have to do what we can to make Mastodon (and Lemmy) more open and accepting without falling pretty to the paradox of tolerance.
#4 is hard… Although I think if Mastodon follows or tries to replicate the “early” Facebook user experience where most or all of the content people got was from people they follow, that could be better. The only challenge is that algorithms tickle our anger/hate/disgust impulses to drive and maintain engagement. That’s some very strong “lizard brain” stuff.
So… let’s get going y’all! :)
I love how he just uncritically and with absolute credulity accepts excerpts from a letter written by Zuck with no supporting evidence, no examples of what “pressure” looked like, etc.
I can’t believe these people are still so butt hurt about the perfectly reasonable actions taken by the US and State governments and governments worldwide in response to a once in a century global respiratory DEADLY pandemic that killed millions and millions of humans.
And as far as FB (and other social media) goes, fuck em. And fuck the users. Types of speech can be illegal. Defamation (lying about someone) and false advertising (lying about a product or service) can be illegal even though it’s definitely speech. These have “lying” in common, which to me implies there must be something about lying (specifically misrepresenting reality) that weakens typical 1st Amendment protections.
But it’s clear what this guy is most sad about is the traffic he got while his article about Woodstock going on during a lull in the comparatively mild pandemic that was “active” at the time (no meaningful H3N2 activity in the US at the time) went away when FB rightly changed the algorithm to not boost his stupid irrelevant “analysis.”
But people like the writer of this article are either too addled by conspiracy galaxy brain or too committed to lying for money to care that they could really hurt people with their bullshit.
This guy needs to go to something less harmful like selling homeopathic tinctures or lying about the moon landing or flat earth or something.
Yeah but we’d have to redo the Senate completely - definitely a Constitutional amendment - and expand the House (I think they can just add seats) to reduce or eliminate the power of land ownership on our government’s composition.
Or change the Senate to a House Of Lords kind of model. Still an amendment.
Which means the short term solution is all anti MAGA people have to band together and stick together until MAGA dies off. Then maybe the Republican Party can be reborn to be more like it was in the 70s (but hopefully with less bigotry). This rot started with Reagan, so we have to go back at least that far.
(This would also free up religious people to find the candidate and party whose policy goals match their most important beliefs instead of the other way around.)
I bought a squirrel proof bird feeder pole thing
It works great, now I’m happy to watch the squirrels run around not eating my birds’ seed.
Only downside so far is some wasps built a nest inside and stung me. But they’re dead now.
Well ok but you’re pointing out the authoritarian avalanche in the Republican Party, not American politics writ large.
I think people like AOC and Max Frost (and heck, Tim Walz) show that it’s possible for there to be progress. We just have to want it. Also we have to learn to ignore trump and his ilk instead of giving them equal time.
Also I think you’d be hard pressed to find any credible biological scientist willing to define “life” let alone define when it “begins.” I’m sure there are scientists who will, but they’re probably not biologists, or they’re “scientists.”
Not all fertilizations create viable zygotes. Not all zygotes become viable blastocysts. Not all blastocysts successfully embed in the uterine wall. Not all embedded blastocysts develop into viable embryos. Not all embryos become viable fetuses.
So I’d take exception through all of that to say any of those are protectable “lives” in any meaningful sense.
Roe was a very imperfect solution to the problem of men wanting to control women’s bodies. The best decision would’ve been to say that any abortion a woman and her doctor agree on is legal.
A moral or ethical doctor’s willingness to perform an abortion is inversely proportional to the gestational age of the fetus. Medical boards are charged with only granting licenses to moral & ethical doctors.
FWIW there’s a way to bridge Bluesky accounts to Mastodon
https://fed.brid.gy/