In addition to what @LwL said - It has to do with how testing is done, and that some diseases can’t really be tested for. It is quite expensive, and is generally done on small samples from lots of people mixed together. If it is positive they split the batch and test again (look up binary search).

The lower the incidence rate of diseases, the larger batches can be done. Ditching certain denographics with significantly higher risks for certain diseases can make testing orders of magnitudes cheaper and faster. (Other groups, at least where I live, include people who recently changed partner, recently went abroad, have ever gotten a blood transfusion, have gone through a recent surgery, have recently been sick, etc. etc.)

Those 5 requirements are not small things, but as a (relatively) recent linux migrant, here’s my take.

1. Keep using iTunes (but use the windows version) - through wine. You get to keep all your stuff as is for now with the possibility of migrating to another service in the future.

2. See above, stick with your current device, keep using iTunes for now.

3. If it’s for private stuff LibreOffice suite does just fine though + the thunderbird email client. If it’s for work you should probably have a work device, but there is also winapps for linux, which isn’t official by microsoft, so it might be a bit funky.

4. Maybe try out proton if you want something trustworthy to back up your photos. They’ve recently added a service for that. Costs a subscription though.

5. Keep using evernote. There’s a linux client.

Obviously there will be hickups, and things’d be a lot more smooth if you were willing to make some adjustments, but this is perfectly doable.

I agree that it would be better if people used votes as a marker of quality, but strongly disagree on moderation action based on voting.

Personally, there’s three scenarios when I use downvotes w/o commenting:

• Someone has already voiced the reason

• I don’t have time/energy to comment

• The target is a censored echo-chamber that will ban anyone who disagrees (can’t vote/show disapproval if you’re banned) - example would be .ml communities having moments about how stalinist USSR did nothing wrong.

Anyway, once a post from a community rises sufficiently to pop up on all, it becomes a part of the larger discussion, and voting will shift towards the opinions of the larger fediverse. This is also usually when communities get discovered by more people. If a community doesn’t want the engagement of the wider user-base, a closed blog may be more suitable as a forum, or alternatively have an instance w/o downvoting.

When browsing all or new I do so both to break out of my bubble and to vote on content (usually stuff I find interesting).

Oh !worldnews@lemmy.ml does have moderation. The mods there are very deliberate in the things they do(n’t) allow. Woe betide you if you ever criticize certain historic (or current) authoritarian genocidal regimes.

Expectations of what is part of the discussion, not expectations of privacy.

As for doxxing, that’s a problem with all social media - but possibly worse on the “regular” ones (people having mobs attacking their houses, being arrested in countries with censorship laws etc.)

Admins and moderators can already take care of these sorts of problems.

That’s because it’s supposed to be. I was on Reddit for a decade until their management shit the bed, and these kinds of problems weren’t a thing there despite the much larger userbase.

For the record, to me it’s less about privacy and more about setting expectations. I’m not anonymous online, I’m pseudonymous, I’ve had this handle for a long time. I am my online identity, and when I post and vote I don’t feel anonymous, even if I’m relatively protected from someone knocking on my door or messaging my boss about a statement.

If voting “ledgers” aren’t presented in the discussion, that’s because they aren’t intended to be part of the discussion. This reduces the value of influential individuals votes (ooh Bill Gates liked X, Kamala Harris disliked Y etc.) and shifts focus to how the community values of the content. It’s the same reason that we follow communities rather than individuals. We get an internet “hive mind” of sorts without cult of personality.

Votes already are presented to the end user in an aggregated fashion, as opposed to how it is on kbin/mbin. In any case, even in the current implementation manipulation is relatively easy, as an admin can just spin up extra accounts. The fediverse relies on trust.

I like the idea - if the lemmy devs do implement public voting I’d definitely move over. Not only does it maintain the (current) state of voter visibility, but it also protects from the frequently cited admin and kbin/mbin exploits. Trusting one admin is far easier than trusting every admin.

I was actually having similar thoughts after reading the post (forking lemmy) but idk if I have the time to run an instance.

We’ve already seen that kind of harrasment on major platforms including X and those owned by Meta.

This kind of sentiment is exactly why votes need to not be visible. As soon as the general expectation is that votes are public information free to be used and abused, it will be used and abused.

If we look at any of the big social media platforms with public votes, that has not prevented voting abuse through bots and the like. Rather it has served to fuel online harrassment campaigns and value of influential individuals votes (ooh Bill Gates liked X, Kamala Harris disliked Y etc.)

Aggregating votes rather than having individually visible votes serves the purpose of shifting focus to how the community values of the content. It’s the same reason that we follow communities rather than people.

What’s better is to edit every comment and keep your acc active so they can’t roll it back.

I asked through support whether they keep previous versions of edited comments and posts, which they claimed that they don’t.

Most estimates (and all recent ones) put that number around 50 mln, the vast majority of whom died from disease, rather similarly to how the black death from asia killed the majority of europe and the middle east two hundred years prior.

Did it enable colonialism? Yes. Was it meticulously planned? No.

Well for the most part if we want to have a less context-dependent measure, with some caveats

The “left” vs “right” dichotomy is inherently context-dependent though. Objectively, it’s a terrible way to compare ideologies without context. Personally I find 8axis to be pretty decent instead. Unfortunately, the world on average is more authoritarian & conservative than the US, your scale may be an accurate representation of the lemmy overton window.

What’s fucked is most people think of prominent historical figures…

Because they think that the changes they achieved were good, and they see themselves as good, and they consider themselves american liberals.

Either way there is no chance that democratic socialists are as extremist as national conservatives.

In the global overton window? Yes way.

What pushes democratic socialists a full point towards the fringe compared to social democrats?

From wikipedia:

Democratic socialism is a left-wing set of political philosophies that supports political democracy and some form of a socially owned economy, with a particular emphasis on economic democracy, workplace democracy, and workers’ self-management within a market socialist, decentralised planned, or democratic centrally planned socialist economy.

Unlike social democrats, democratic socialists want to do away with private ownership and market economies. For the record, the US democratic party are not social democrats.

I’ll finish off with my take on the infamous “what’s a liberal?”. In hindsight it was probably a poor choice of words as there is no such thing as a “pure” liberal. The basic liberal value is freedom. To me, that includes freedoms of thought, speech, press (i.e writing, possibly also digital), organization, bodily autonomy and lastly ownership. Everything else is a product of how to interpret those freedoms and how to implement them.

“Pure liberals” would most of all strive to uphold these individual freedoms, though their solutions when different peoples rights clash may be different. A “pure” liberal strives for a balance maximizing freedoms of individuals whilst simultaneously minimizing infringements from both government and private actors. To me, neither ancaps nor libertarians are liberal. Libertarians prioritize small government to the point where it is incapable of protecting individual rights from abuse by third parties whilst ancaps prioritize property rights over individual freedoms.

Soclibs and libcons both limit freedoms somewhat in favour of other values.

Oh for sure. You’ve got to look at the ideology under the hood.

Party names are really just names. In Sweden, vänsterpartiet (left party) are communists (former name vänsterpartiet kommunisterna during the soviet era). In Denmark there’s venstre (left) which are liberal conservatives.

Even our most economically right wing party (the moderates) are to the left of the US Democrats in that area.

That has more to do with the fact that centre-right/right/far-right sources are seldom posted to lemmy and the communities implementing it generally prefer factual reporting.

Here are some examples of other ratings:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/goteborgs-posten/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-sun-bias/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fria-tider-free-times/

As an outsider, the Dem party is in a funky spot politically. Whilst it economically is to the right, many of its social policies it endorses are leftist. Their emphasis on equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity is a large part of that, regulation of expressions and policy of migration.

Where I live, most of our political parties are left of the dems economically (basic welfare is not even a debate), but many would clearly be right of them (though usually not even close to the republicans) in social policy.

Democratic socialists and communists are both far to the left, even where those are options.

Communist would be 10, demsoc maybe 8 or 9, socdem 7, soclib 5, 6 or 7 depending on the flavour, pure libs circ 5.

On the other side you get libcon at 3/4/5, soccons 3/4, cons 3, natcon 2/3 and fascists/nazis @ 1.

It says a lot that you put left at 5, which generally should be the middle of the scale.

Simutrans and Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead