I see a lot of posts lately, mainly in ‘world news’ communities, that when I investigate their source, I cannot come to any other conclostion that purposefully spreading of fake news and propaganda on lemmy....
I feel the most consequent stance is to demand all the things. Not to reject all the things except for the one pure solution.
As long as ICE vehicles are still sold, even make up the most of the sales, supporting EVs is moving in the right direction. At the same time, even better solutions can be demanded and supported.
They eliminate a part of the emissions, since one big engine (like a power plant) can be run more efficiently than many small engines (in individual vehicles).
Similarly, transporting electricity through wires creates less emissions than transporting fuel with trucks. Both serve the purpose of refueling other vehicles.
Even coal powered EVs are better than gasoline cars.
I have noticed that I interact a lot more in Lemmy than I ever did in any social media. Let it be Reddit, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter… I am used to be the lurker, but here for some reason things are different. Wonder if more people feel like I do.
I don’t think we were talking about the same thing. You’re talking about restricting your behaviour, “focus on your niche”, “stay away from propaganda media”. My proposal was to use an instance which makes it unecessary for you to restrict yourself to certain areas, if their moderation policy aligns with your default behaviour.
Of course it ultimately comes down to similar things, since instances which do not care wether you’re nice aren’t allowed in all places which require you to be nice. The key difference is still that you don’t have to be wary yourself. It sounded as if you would not like that.
Agree to everything but the doom. Yes, most people will only give 1 chance to a platform, but we haven’t churned through most people yet. Most people are yet to honor Lemmy with their first visit, at some point in the future. We will be better prepared than ever. This wil be true for a long while. So I think we should make (reasonable) haste, but nothing is lost yet. In the long run, we’re still growing.
I’ve seen it fairly often by now; many people seem to enjoy posts with moderately long comment sections. I believe this is what contributes to a more wholesome experience.
Similar to how groups meet a natural breaking point when they grow too big and people cannot know each other anymore, I imagine huge comment sections create a sense of being meaningless and unheard. This discourages sensitive voices, and may appeal more to people who don’t care anyways, which isn’t exactly a great attitude for social encounters.
I can further imagine large comment sections create FOMO for the reader, and can overall be more stressful, which leads to aggression.
Just guesses and impressions. No idea if true. Also no clue how to foster that environment in a growing network.
This place bans you for “not being nice”, which is an arbitrary metric that changes from mod to mod and let’s all be honest, being nice is exhausting.
Lemmy is many places (individual instances with individual moderation policies). If it’s important to you, you can find a server which matches your expectations, or host your own.
Treat your volunteers well, or why should they continue volunteering?
Kernel maintainers have plenty of other opportunities.
I don’t know if they are volunteering or being paid. The other person said they are being paid.
Either way, no one deserves being talked down to like that, even if they made a mistake. It’s a matter of respect and self-respect. And as a skilled person like a kernel developer, it should be trivially easy to find other work in a more appropriate environment.
That being said, maybe I’m missing something. Torvalds has been known to be like that for a long time (although that seems to be over now). And still, Linux has been developed over decades. So apparently, skilled people flocked around Torvalds, or maybe rather his project. Not entirely sure why, but I’m taking it as a hint I might be missing something.
To be fair, “I did my own research” is not an argument, and should be considered unconvincing. It’s a claim, an unsubstantiated claim.
A meaningful answer would produce an argument informed by that research, how they disagree, and why.
As a side effect, this proves they did their research, although that part is entirely irrelevant. It allows to clear up misunderstandings, in case they missed important parts while doing their research. Some crucial insights aren’t that obvious.
Most importantly, making an argument informed by your own research contributes constructively to the discussion and advances it.
It’s impossible to definitively prove without traveling to an alternate timeline where the industrial revolution never happened, but ALL signs point to “yes”.
Exactly, we find it reasonable to treat this as a fact. I agree. But until we find an answer to these questions, it’s ultimately based on opinion:
What is the difference between fact and opinion? How can we tell them apart, without relying on opinion?
What you say about science may be true, but what value we assign to these statements ultimately depends on epistemology. In the end, we don’t even know if causality exists or if things just randomly happen as if causality existed. There are many weird and useless ways to view the universe. We rule them out, not because we’ve proven them wrong, but because we agree to focus on other theories. We share the opinion that this world probably works in a way which allows us to do science in it (me too). All other science is based on that opinion.
I will flatly refuse to talk to you about anything if you believe that whether or not our planet is getting hotter year over year is a matter of opinion and therefore no more significant than someone’s favorite movie.
You can have a different opinion. No one will hound you for saying… I dunno, Asteroid City was better than Across The Spiderverse. And I’d have some choice words for anyone who did. What you cannot have is alternative facts.
In practice, that’s exactly my position. Just from a very epistemologically viewpoint, my previous comment results.
Simply put, we have no way to show which is fact and which is opinion. One attempt to do that is science. But there are many "but"s with this.
It isn’t obvious which philosophy of science is “correct”. Different schools of thought exist.
Let’s assume there was only one “true” science. Even with that reduction, we still need approval (peer review), and to establish a consensus.
We have no tool or process which you could point at a fact, and then that thing says “Yup, that’s a fact!”. Or at least, we have no way to agree over which tool that should be, how it should work. Even if we disregard all political and religious squabbles.
Of course facts exist. But all you can ever perceive is your perception, and all you can ever communicate is your perspective.
To treat facts in the way you want (and me too), we need to agree what those facts are. We need to convince each other.
Of course some of these opinion-facts weigh much more heavily than others. Climate change is very much more serious than which movie someone fancies.
But fundamentally, what is the difference between fact and opinion? How can we tell them apart, without relying on opinion?
What you consider right and wrong, fact or fiction, is your opinion. If you disagree with that, that’s your opinion.
Philosophers may try to make statements about the world, but all they can ever do is speak their mind, express their view, voice their opinion.
Further, everyone can only ever experience the world through their individual, subjective point of view. That’s an additional explanation why people disagree over what to consider objective facts. We ultimately lack objectivity and have to find a consensus; agree.
Just for the record, I hate the post-fact world with needles disagreements over otherwise established facts. My comment is not meant in defense of that.
Also note the academic discourse is far from that clear-cut opinion-fact-dichotomy. Experts disagree how to weigh and interpret evidence. Fields try to establish a consensus.
Finally, we aren’t these perfect rational beings, but individuals with backgrounds, fears, ambitions, circumstances. There’s a lot more going into what people consider facts than pure logic.
So why is this? The answers so far seem unsatisfactory, since things like phones, SUVs and car-centric infrastructure are on the rise in other countries as well, without that staggering rise in deaths.
I spent about 3 minutes browsing the report linked in the article, and am rather less confident than before. For example, on pages 25 and 26 they look at the share of SUVs in deaths and sales. And while both figures are rising, the bodycount from non-SUVs has gone up as well.
The answer is probably not a single factor anyways. Can anyone make a more or less informed guess what might explain the US being so bad?
seastars! (mander.xyz)
What can we do, as lemmy users, to fight fake news being pushed in the platform?
I see a lot of posts lately, mainly in ‘world news’ communities, that when I investigate their source, I cannot come to any other conclostion that purposefully spreading of fake news and propaganda on lemmy....
"Just Season It" by Mr.Lovenstein (telegra.ph)
Source: Mastodon - RSS...
Yes, also Teslas (media.mastodon.scot)
A sobering thought! (files.mastodon.social)
by @timoelliott (source)...
Do you interact more in Lemmy?
I have noticed that I interact a lot more in Lemmy than I ever did in any social media. Let it be Reddit, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter… I am used to be the lurker, but here for some reason things are different. Wonder if more people feel like I do.
Linus does not fuck around (lemmy.one)
An oldie, but a goodie
deleted_by_author
US Pedestrian deaths rose a troubling 77% between 2010 and 2021. (www.ghsa.org)
cross-posted from: lemmy.ca/post/12581895...
Well, this is something! (fossil-free electricity in Europe) (files.mastodon.social)
cross-posted from: lemm.ee/post/12727327...