Not censorship, but enshitification. Reddit has been steering in an anti-user direction for quite a while. Killing the 3rd party apps that made that site useable was the straw that broke the camel’s back.
People who whine about being booted over “personal beliefs” tend to conveniently neglect to mention what those beliefs are. If you feel strongly that pineapple should absolutely NEVER go on pizza, then I’ll disagree with you and leave it at that; if you get booted from a community over that opinion, yeah that’s fucking crazy and indicative of a community that should be abandoned anyway. If you feel strongly about things like gay people should be killed or women should have restricted rights, then I’ll disagree with you and report your ass for every comment that even hints at bigotry, cuz you’re a horrible person and are absolutely not welcome here.
The not saying why they were banned is what inspired my question.
I was afraid those people would just come here, but the moderation based on instance and community seems to be working so far. I’m curious how’s that’s going to scale.
The conversations about Threads has me nervous about that bit. If “because it’s fucking Meta!” isn’t reason enough to defederate with them by default, we’re looking at getting hit with a tsunami of content that will be impossible to moderate. Guess we’ll see.
Alexander Graham Bell. How can the guy who invented the telephone be overlooked you ask? It’s actually pretty low on the list of his (yes this is subjective) coolest achievements. His Wikipedia page is a blast.
Well, under a free market system it can’t because of competition. Under a centrally-controlled system, greed can run unchecked in the environment of total control.
Pho. I have a killer recipe for the instant pot but it basically works out to the same price as just buying it from our local takeout. And they’re Vietnamese.
1 packet of vietnamese meatballs (these cook separately to the other meat)
CHARRED VEG
1 root of ginger (around 3 inches long), unpeeled, cut in half lengthways
1 onion, skinned and cut in half
FLAVORS
10 pieces of star anise (aniseed)
1 tablespoon coriander seed
1 cinnamon stick
1 tablespoon salt
1 clump of rock sugar
6 tablespoons of fish sauce
MSG (? amount)
TOPPINGS
Fresh Cilatro
Culantro (sawtooth, big leafy shit)
Basil
Green onion
Lime
Sliced onions
Bean sprouts
Hoisin Sauce
Sriracha
OTHER
Rice Noodles
Bring a big pot of water to the boil and drop the meat (except the meatballs and flank) into the boiling water. Furiously boil for 10 minutes. Drain and wash the meat under the tap.
Turn on the broiler, put the ginger and onion in, cut side up, until nicely charred.
Fill the instant pot to 1 inch below full line (12 cups/3 quarts or a little more). Add the washed meat (not the meatballs, not the flank) to the water and adjust water if overfilled. Then add the charred veg and the flavor ingredients.
Lid on, pressure cook button and set to 1 hour and 30 minutes. Prep toppings. Add the noodles to cold water and soak for at least 30 minutes. Let the pressure cooker depressurize naturally when done. During this time, prepare a pot of boiling water for the meatballs and noodles.
Once the Instant Pot beeps finished, boil the meatballs in water for 10 minutes. When these are done, remove, and leave the water boiling ready for the noodles. When ready to serve, dip the noodles in the boiling water for 1-2 minutes and remove immediately.
Open Instant Pot and remove meat to cut and plate. Strain the broth. If you have time, strain it a second time through a piece of kitchen towel to remove extra impurities. Return broth pot to Instant Pot and turn to low saute - taste and adjust seasonings as needed.
Plate up the food, starting with noodles, then meat, flank, broth, then toppings and sauce. Get slurpy.
The fundamental cause of America’s problem is the two-party system. If you want to get rid of that you have to switch to a proportional representation system. I would suggest working at the local or state level. I do not know of any organization working on this issue. You would likely have to start one yourself or hire someone else to do so.
If you’re genuinely going to do it, any suggestion I make here about specifics would be pointless, as you should do significant research before deciding on what flavor of proportional representation to push and where. But, the key is to adopt a system known for accurate and small party representation. If a party gets enough votes to win a single seat, they should be awarded a single seat. If they get a third of the votes, they should get a third of the seats.
I used to say this too, but living in a multiparty country for 20+ years now (NL) I don’t see it as an advantage when you need to govern so large a country. It sounds like an easy solution until you try to get agricultural and city people to agree, and then now try multiplying it by 50.
Unfortunately, a two-party system will likely work best as you’ll need a common consensus to move the country in a single direction.
Wow. You really don’t care to understand a point other than your own. You want to pivot anyone else’s opinion to meaninglessness, and so I don’t see a need to reply further to a one-note-mentality as yours. Enjoy your holidays and goodbye.
You’re saying that choice isn’t good and that people need to choose better (perhaps choosing more like you?). Skip the pretense and only have one choice.
The guy before me keeps changing my position to secure his point, but no - more isn’t any better than no choice. We have to choose for people with a plan, not a platform, and one that works for all of us and not at the expense of any of us (because one day they’ll come for you).
Regardless of the number of choices that we appear to have, it doesn’t matter if the real choices are ultimately made through other means (e.g. lobbyists in the US).
Not sure why the downvotes on OP, it’s a reasoned opinion and worthy of discussion.
I think you’re saying that if you have too many political parties then the whole system gets watered down so much that nothing happens and the direction of the country can change at any time because there’s no unified agenda. Isn’t there a system to elect a leader who’d set the agenda and coordinate?
One would hope that through conversation we’d have more reasoned information but it appears camping on a platform is where people go to “win”.
We’ve dozens of parties trying to win to form a coalition, so sheer numbers don’t help. You can easily argue that our politics have grown stale and ineffective here in the recent years, and there’s a growing need for change.
For instance we’ve already had a few elections where a farmers collective party and the far right party have won their elections, but immediately afterwards (sometimes within a day, as in the farmers (BBB)) they’ve abandoned key parts of the platform that helped get them elected. Or their positions are so vile that no other party will work with them.
I’d argue that there are the side effects of taking a position first and wanting change at any cost. This is the cost - only more stagnation.
My point is “more” does not mean “better” - often, it’s just more of the same. Vote for and demand “Better”.
Just imagine if all we had were FvD and VVD. Because that’s what the US has. You can vote between far right, and regular right.
Yeah, we don’t exactly have the best government here right now, but at least we have options. There’s a surprising amount of fluctuation in dominant parties over the years, something you’ll never see in a two-party system.
Oooo I actually just got a new robot and named him S8AN, cause it’s model is the S8, and who doesn’t like to say Satan is mopping the kitchen ? My previous ones were Fernando and Fernandos (dos like 2 in Spanish, which I thought was pure genius ha). Fernandos is still in use, Fernando has been retired to robot heaven after a few years of diligent service. 🫡
You’d start by attending $10,000 plate dinners, and shaking hands with candidates and expressing views. Hire a few $60k a year idealists for a think tank to publish papers. Pick 1-2 issues and hammer them. Pay lobbyists to set up meeting and propose/write legislation and amendments.
As some of your (hopefully idealistic) candidates win, you ask them to help drive your issues through. Get them to make concessions to other people’s proposals for support on theirs, helped by your lobbyists. Use your think tank to drove issues and provide talking points and legislation.
That’s the traditional view. A better approach might be to create a 501c3 and run positive message ads that give you a warm feeling about america in general, say nothing of substance, and include a candidate you like’s name sometimes. Then another pac showing pictures of the candidate you don’t like and chanting “hate hate hate” behind them. Play to your audience.
asklemmy
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.