Schadrach

I say #2, specifically because it can be done mathematically, as opposed to trying to agree on some definition of “fairness” that isn’t completely different for every office and doesn’t have to be wholly redistricted every election as a consequence.

Say, something like least split line. Basically, if you have an even number of seats for a region, draw the shortest length line that splits the region into two regions of equal population. If you have an odd number of seats > 1, then draw the shortest line that splits the region based on number per seat given one side gets the “extra” seat (for example, for 5 seats you’d split so that one side is 2/3 of the other side and give 3 seats to one side and 2 to the other). Repeat the process for each region created by these lines until each region represents one seat. If there are multiple shortest lines, you the one closest to a NS axis. The extra seat always goes to the west side of the line.

I don’t know, I wouldn’t mind also being able to tell it to start to preheat while I’m on my way home. Would save a chunk of time if I could literally walk in the door and throw the food in the oven without the extra wait for it to preheat which is usually long enough to be annoying but not long enough to do anything else.

Headline was inaccurate - they didn’t bomb a place for a gender reveal. Instead they bombed a place that produced blue smoke for some other reason and joked about how it resembling a gender reveal. That’s…not better but it’s an important distinction - one is blowing shit up to announce it’s a boy and the other is blowing shit up to blow shit up and then joking about the color of the smoke.

You’d have to be an asshole not oppose country based on settler-colonialism and ethnic cleansing

…and yet, being anti-Israel was considered a far-right neo-Nazi position not that long ago. It became acceptable again from the start of the current flare up (the current fighting isn’t something new, it’s been going on and off for decades). Before that, anti-Israel meant anti-Jew meant obviously Nazi. It’s wild how when things change so many people will just quietly drop the old narrative and pretend it never existed. We’ve always been at war with Eurasia and all that.

The reality is that the US supports Israel, has for a long time and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. It’s not because of being pro-Jew or wanting to ethnically cleanse Arabs, it’s because they’re our only real ally in the Middle East and thus we’ll remain safely on their good side unless and until we get a strategically more useful ally in the Middle East. Then keeping them happy becomes less important.

Compared to the US, they don’t. 1A protections are extremely broad, to be outside protected speech it practically has to be either CSAM or inciting immediate lawless action.

As in “SLUR should be hanged from trees” is protected under 1A, “Guys, grab that SLUR over there and string him up” is not. CSAM is primarily illegal because production, distribution and even possession further harms the victim of the CSA performed to create it.

Honestly, we need to reform our economic system and not continually rely on fertility to solve all of our problems.

Fertility and demographic collapse aren’t about supporting an economic system. Even if we were a post-scarcity communist utopia women would need to average 2.1 children/woman to maintain the existing population (2.1 isn’t growth, it’s maintenance - if you wonder why it’s slightly higher than the number of people involved with making new people it’s because you also have to cover for infertility and mortality among those children) or the same population-level result would occur. The nasty thing about demographic collapse is that it’s subtle until it isn’t and by that point it’s really hard to fix. There is no economic system where people don’t need to make more people to have a stable population, at least not unless/until we achieve some kind of immortality.

Ultimately you have three options when it comes to the topic, and they all have downsides:

1. Get your people to make more people. Downsides: Those new people aren’t really contributing to society for a couple of decades, which means it’s a long term fix for a problem that might be a big problem in a shorter term than that depending on where we’re talking about. Also, there aren’t a lot of ethical ways to do this, and the ones that are ethical aren’t extremely effective.

2. Import people from elsewhere. Downside: If you do this too quickly and/or without pushing for assimilation you will irrevocably change if not destroy your culture. This is why places like Japan and South Korea aren’t allowing unlimited mass immigration from anywhere people are willing to come from despite being on the cusp of the “until it isn’t” part of “subtle until it isn’t.”

3. Do nothing, and hope it just fixes itself. Downside: This is essentially a death spiral for your people.

Any random 9-digit number can be a valid SSN.

Not true - there are whole ranges that specifically aren’t in use (mostly specific values for the first three digits that are intentionally not used). Outside those ranges though, yeah, basically any 9 digit number. Add one to the last digit of your SSN and if you were born before 2014 you likely get someone born in the same hospital on the same day.

Like the ridiculous subscription mouse a few months back, I’d be willing to bite with the right incentives, but those aren’t incentives the manufacturer is going to be OK with. I’d take a car with ads, so long as it was sufficiently discounted compared to a normal car. And then I’d look up how to disable the ads.

Blocklist is literally empty.

They federate with everyone, including the insufferable right wingers, the insufferable tankies, and the people who draw loli (I think there’s only one lemmy instance still active that allows loli and it’s the radqueer one, and it’s tiny enough you don’t notice it unless you go looking for it). Most of the insufferable right wingers have also closed their respective instances.

If their mastodon instance is any comparison, it still federate with everyone including the instances that post loli. I suspect if an instance were posting stuff illegal in the US that would be grounds for SDF to defederate for legal reasons, but 1A protections are broader than speech protections in most of the rest of the world.

You can always block the community or even the entire instance of anyone you don’t want to see.

Or one with the broadest possible federation like lemmy.sdf.org, though they are US based if that’s a problem for you.

SDF does not defederate. The blocklist is empty. And it’s small enough and chill enough that it’s unlikely to get blocked by other instances much.

They’re a non-profit that’s older than the web and offers a variety of network and retrocomputing services including most famously a public access Unix server. They started as a dialup anime BBS.

I’ve never had that problem. Not on my instance’s web page or using Sync on my phone.

…it would be if in your analogy GMail blocks Yahoo because they don’t like the politics of their CEO, Outlook blocks both GMail and Yahoo to create a safe space, and you left Protonmail out of the list entirely because almost everyone else is blocking them for not banning users who email the wrong kind of porn to each other.

It’s not a big deal until you realize the notion that they all talk to each other is mostly a lie and all the big ones block dozens of instances each. Hell, the threads on the larger instances about whether or not Threads and Truth Social should be defederated if they ever enable federation were some of the highest activity topics on Lemmy for a bit. So was people cheering about Burggit shutting down their lemmy server.

My parents told me that I’d understand how the world works when I get older, but I just hate it more and more.

That’s how you know you’re understanding it.

let’s just make more trans people. Problem solved!

This is literally what right wingers accuse trans people trying to engage with kids in public of doing. Like trans story time, or trans teachers. That they’re going to trans their children, like it’s some kind of vampire curse.

Worst case you bail for a different instance, ideally one that doesn’t defederate if your goal is not to have content blocked from you.

No, your canaries are already long dead. It’s long been a process when Reddit admins don’t want a sub to exist but it isn’t actually breaking any rules to laser focus on the moderators, ban them the moment they have an excuse, immediately ban the sub for being unmoderated, refuse to give it to a new mod via reddit request and ban any replacement subs for recreating a banned sub. Hell, r/GamingCircleJerk has been laughing about some right wing gaming memes sub having that done to it just a few weeks ago.

They only care about it not looking like they are just nuking subs they don’t like is because they don’t want to scare off other users who might get antsy about having a community under those sorts of capricious admins.

This sounds a lot like an automation of that process that misfired. That they were all specifically banned for being “unmoderated” is what jumps out to me as telling.

So like nearly every commemorative coin then. I have half a dozen tied to various years I went to PAX because I thought they were a cool piece of memorabilia.

And, since it’s a subliminal process, it’s extremely difficult to make a concious decision to not buy products you’ve seen or heard ads of.

Instead, I make a conscious decision to not buy products I remember seeing or hearing ads of. If you’re using subtle product placement to subliminally manipulate me in a way I don’t notice, good for you. If it’s obvious enough I remember you doing it then I will not buy your product unless it is already the best deal available (aka the cheapest per unit or best quality per price, excepting products I have had a bad experience with).

Sounds like an obvious spot in the market for a bullshit-free smart TV. You’d just have to get the UX right.

I mean, the viewpoint these folks operate from is that there’s no need to discuss consent because you should never consent prior to marriage (aka abstinence before marriage is always saying no, so there’s no need to discuss any other answer) and that marriage is always implied consent at all times (so there remains nothing to discuss because now it’s always yes) - the whole idea of talking about consent is built on the implication that there isn’t a preordained, socially determined answer but instead that it’s a question that needs to be discussed.