- 14 Posts
- 84 Comments
2·1 month agoYeah, sorry on not doing a better job of moderating that community. I recently realized that this user isn’t a mod on that community and I haven’t been getting reports. I did some cleanup though, and user reporting will help a lot, since I still feel less ownership of it, which means I’m less likely to proactively take something down.
Seems like it doesn’t have to be forcing communities to thrive, so much as exploring the Fediverse and having fun as a group effort. Hopefully some people would stick around in each community afterwards. I think it’s worth trying, the Fediverse is small enough that even a little bit of group effort is maybe enough to reach critical mass, and a little bit of splintering is enough to prevent it.
I think you’d want moderator buy-in, or someone willing to step up as moderator. It seems much more likely to fail if there’s a group effort like this on a community where the moderator(s) aren’t around anymore or don’t care for outside help. You’d probably also want to determine if memes/low effort posts are allowed or not for a given community.
I’m willing to help out as I’m able, and I volunteer !outofcontextcomics@lemmy.world as a good candidate. I’m a moderator there, but really just secondary. It’s great example of a community that’s kind of dormant (ever since @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world stopped posting), but it’s not dead. I’ve been meaning to post more, but haven’t gotten around to it, and if there was a group effort that would give me an excuse to prioritize it.
I’d also be a big fan of keeping such organization efforts here in !fedigrow@lemmy.zip and not creating a new community just for that, imo wider communities are better, and should only be split off when they’re big enough on their own. Maybe a weekly stickied thread? It would also be nice to be able to opt-in to getting message pings, it’s easy to forget and miss it in your feed.
Also, a related effort would be getting people to comment! Even a quick short comment is much better than upvotes, imo.
68·1 month agohttps://windows93.net/ - Some mad lad implemented a custom parody version of Windows 95 that has a bunch of working applications and emulators. Also, check out !internetisawesome@sh.itjust.works for a lot of similar sites.
I think we generally agree with each other. The existence of an omniscient AI or deity doesn’t change the “experience” of free will. It doesn’t “invalidate choice” from the point of view of the observed. It does “invalidate choice” from the point of view of the observer, who can now say “This thing exhibits no unpredictable behavior to me”. You and I both think we have free will, because we can’t predict our own behavior. Our experience is unchanged, whether or not some other observer exists or could exist that could predict our behavior.
Agreeing on a frame of reference is exactly my point. “Does something have free will?” requires the follow-up question, “According to whom?”. Just like “I’m far from that rock” requires the followup question, “According to whom?”. The ant might think you’re far from the rock, something else might think you’re near the rock.
To boil it down a bit more, my point is just that you can always replace the phrase “free will” in speech with “unpredictable behavior” without loss of meaning, because that is what people actually mean when they say it, whether they realize that or not.
We’re not “relieved” of free will. It’s not an intrinsic property that one “has”. It would be like having “big” or “near”. You don’t “have” big, it’s a relative term.
It’s simply a description of observed behavior. That’s all it really is in the end, even though people treat it as this super mysterious thing.
Why not? It might seem absurd, but can you prove they don’t “choose” to flit about here or there? A super-intelligent AI might also be able to “pierce the veil” and determine the underlying mechanics, like a video game character determining the math behind the random number generator that powers their world.
That’s also only one interpretation of quantum mechanics, mechanistic interpretations aren’t ruled out (though a number of variants have been).
Free will is incompatible with omniscience. People really want it to work, but it doesn’t.
Free will is observer-dependent, and is short for “I can’t predict the behavior of this thing”. For an omniscient observer, there is no thing that it can say that about.
Free will is not an inherent property of a thing, and that’s what trips people up so much.
To ponder it a bit, does a rock have free will? A dog? A human? A super-intelligent AI that we can’t hope to comprehend? Why or why not for each step?
The definition above explains it all. Of course a rock doesn’t, we can predict its behavior with physics! Maybe a monkey does, people disagree on that. Of course human do though, because I do!
Now ponder what the super-intelligent AI would think. “Of course the first three don’t have free will, their behavior is entirely predictable with physics”
This boils down to the best of all possible worlds argument, already well-skewered in Candide centuries ago.
Why create the world exactly the way it was? Is it impossible to create it, so that of their own free will, one more person makes the “right” choice? That’s some sorry omnipotence if so. If not one person, why not two? And so on, until you face the question of, “Why not create the world so that everyone, of their own free will, makes the ‘right’ decision”.
Calvinists are intellectually brave enough to accept the metaphysical consequences of their beliefs. Others, not so much.
What jurisdiction? In the US, factual information that you simply compile likely isn’t copyrightable, there’s been some court cases about e.g. telephone books:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc._v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co.
Won’t stop big companies from harassing you if they feel like it, though. Nintendo is petty enough that they might
Yeah, turns out a lot of companies don’t really think about security, here’s a DEF CON talk where they find stuff that chokes on it:
That sort of exists:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EICAR_test_file
X5O!P%@AP[4\PZX54(P^)7CC)7}$EICAR-STANDARD-ANTIVIRUS-TEST-FILE!$H+H*
8·3 months agoWhat is best in life?
Plug for the !ccp@discuss.online community I started to celebrate the creative commons and public domain. I’ve been posting the wikimedia picture of the day there daily, and other sorts of posts including questions like this are very welcome!
4·3 months agoHi from Lemmy 👋
33·4 months agoHere’s some pics for scale:
I was slightly confused and wondering about beetles the size of a beer bottle, but it seems like not really, the males just like big mates and don’t discriminate much.
5·4 months agoThe easy answer is Signal, which is good enough for non-tech people to use without much issue. It’s not decentralized, but other than it just works.
As an artist? If so, do you have a link?