I’ve taken a couple vehicle hoods to the dome, which is enough to piss you off all the way through the next 2 beers.
The worst was probably as a kid, maybe 3 or 4, jumping on the couch & fell face first onto a 1970’s solid wood coffee table. I can still feel the slight dent in my forehead 40 years later.
What’s the question here? Why dont they delete inactive communities? Why dont they hand the keys over to someone else? If a community is dead, posting in it will mean it is no longer inactive at the least. If you want to see activity, make activity.
Nearly all of the search options sort your front page by activity, so removing old communities won’t make active ones stand out any more. If you’re searching for new communities and fail to notice the last message was 3 years before you posted your 900-page essay, that’s on you. Even if you make the background of stagnant communities bright red, there’s still going to be someone who complains that they somehow “didn’t get any warning”.
Retaining old content has value, you wouldn’t believe how many answers I’ve found on 10+ year old reddit posts that have long since been archived. Information is valuable, it should never be removed unless someone is being harmed by it.
I was never sure what triggered reddit’s archive of a post. I mean even just this year I had someone send me a reply and I had no idea what they were talking about. Looked up the post, it was over three years old! And when I asked them about it, they said they knew it was old but chose to reply anyway. Some people just have really boring lives I guess.
No conservatives browse this site, you’re only going to get Kamala voters here, including myself, telling you what you want to hear: we are going to fucking vote for any Democrat. We are what people call an echo chamber.
Conservative as fuck but haven’t had a single Conservative presidential candidate to vote for in over 10 years. Even then I think I voted Obama twice lol.
This is true. There are two kinds of people who would vote orange. There are those too dumb to understand that he'd make himself dictator, and consequently too dumb to use the Fediverse. Then, there are those smart enough to understand those things and evil enough to want a dictatorship, and they're mostly on those tankie/fascist instances everyone else defederated. Neither of those groups will ever see this thread.
This. Most people here will vote for Wilson from Castaway if he was the Dem nominee.
And they wouldn’t even say it’s because Wilson is the only Dem. They would come up with all the ways that Wilson is actually a good presidential candidate.
Liberalism is broadly understood as neoliberalism, which is an ideological descendant from classical liberalism. This ideology positions itself as being broadly in favour of individual freedom within a rather tight definition of freedom. Namely liberals are concerned with the ability of people to read what they like, own what they like, marry whomever they like and so on provided they do this inside of a system of capitalist free market exchange.
Modern liberalism tends to frown on heavy government intervention in market affairs, which they see as representing the free (and thus good) exchange of goods between individuals. They also tend to be broadly in favour of the militaristic western global hegemony.
Criticism of this attitude comes from 2 places.
too much freedom.
not enough freedom.
(1) is people that want women bound up in the kitchen and walk around with an odd gait that makes you remember Indiana Jones films
(2) are people (I’m in this camp) who see liberalism as a weak ideological position that favours stability over justice and, in so doing, ignores the suffering of billions.
freedom means occasionally you have to fight to defend that freedom and what it means to you. the stability of neoliberalism lulls the masses into placidity and complacency
I think it’s tempting to try and be pithy but freedom is complicated. For some people freedom is an absolute, do what you want when you want. For some it is about theoretical possibilities, for example if you ask if people are free to quit there job the answer heavily depends on how someone balances theory vs practice. Others take a practical lens, freedom only counts if it’s plausible to do.
Sometimes freedom is about ideals. you are free to read all the political theory you like, you umm wont because it’s boring but if someone threatened that would you be upset? At other junctures freedom because pragmatic, “what use is freedom to read if I don’t have freedom to eat? I’ll trade one for the other” someone might say.
Some people rate permissions more than restrictions, some the opposite.
I don’t think it’s a concept we can really pin down. Everyone has their own interpretation and it’s not universally values: much as dominant ideologies often insist it is, the rise of fascism should hint that others care much less about it.
I’m reading Discworld series after some Lemmings suggested it. They’re great! Read Sourcerer and Guards! Guards! And just starting Men at Arms
I laughed so much at the Brotherhood scenes in Guards! When the brothers are bickering, and when the guy has to recite the whole long password but the last line is incorrect.
cleaning up dead communities isn’t a great experience as it is today.
admins could purge communities, but this can cause unexpected breakages with other activitypub software that is more strict about cryptographic verification, as purging a community erases all information about it from the local instance, including the cryptographic private key. purging a community also only removes it on the local instance, so other instances would still have a cached (although possibly marked as deleted) copy of it. this would be the only method that frees up the name to allow creating a new community under the same name later on. locally this would also remove all posts and comments associated in that community, but other instances may think that they have users subscribed to the community and may still have posts and comments in there. this also means if a new community is created with the same name again, the local instance will still not know about older posts, but users on other instances might see them still, and the local moderator might be unable to interact with them at all, e.g. to potentially remove old problematic content.
the next option is removing a community as (instance-)moderator action. this will only mark the community as removed without further impact. regular users won’t be able to access the community on the local or any other instance anymore, but its contents are preserved in case it gets restored at a later point in time. the name is not released and there isn’t even an error message shown when trying to create a new community with the same name.
another option could be to “take over” the community and delete it, which is the act of the top community mod deleting the community (not a moderation action). in this case only the same top community moderator can restore it. this behaves mostly the same as removing it.
none of these options are good to use. imo purging should be avoided in any case, and the other options both require admin intervention to release a community later on and have no user feedback in lemmy-ui at this time, at least on 0.19.5.
for communities entirely without posts it is probably ok to just remove them and restore and transfer them if someone requests them. for communities with content the next best thing might be locking the community, potentially locking all posts if it’s just a small number, to prevent unmoderated new content in that community, and put up a pinned post asking people to reach out if they want to take over the community. otherwise, if the community was removed or deleted, all the posts and comments within them would also be taken down with the community.
I think ‘cute’ has developed a second meaning that is more in line with ‘stylish, aesthetically pleasing, clever’ than the ‘infant baby child/object’ sense of the word but I don’t know how to explain the difference. Probably the person’s other actions and intent and tone. Is someone being condescending in general, trying to frame someone as less than? Or is their body language/conversation style more geared toward a genuine expression of ‘i think you’re cool and like the way you look/your outfit or idea is nice’. I’m short and I get both - there is a subtle but very unmistakable difference between good cute and condescending cute. I feel the same way about ‘adorable’. The condescending usage of cute in my personal experience comes most often from women.
kbin.life
Oldest