Is it a practical example for dealing with a country that is (or at least makes it an open secret that it very probably is) nuclear armed though?

German “denazification” first required complete military defeat and occupation of the German state, that’s not really practical to achieve when the country to be occupied has the option to devastate whatever country it’s fighting as a deterrent/revenge once it concludes defeat is inevitable. As such, what is needed here I think is examples of how to defuse such a situation and push a population away from violence purely through limited conflict, economic pressure, sponsorship of internal dissent, etc

That calcium-loving one that eats your bones if you touch it?

It really depends actually. It certainly can be those things and often is, it can also be a strange comfort thing (it often doesn’t follow biology much at all, so it needn’t be realistically harmful and sometimes gets treated as like very unconventional hugs), or just a power fantasy if done from the predator’s perspective

Does niche fetish stuff that isnt exactly designed to offend but which would seem scary or disturbing to most people who’s brains don’t happen to be wired to enjoy it count as transgressive? If so, (a subset of) vore art

Meanwhile, I already save all the time used to fold laundry, plus the money to buy a robot, by simply sticking it in the dresser drawers unfolded. Who even decided to make that a thing anyway, not like it makes it cleaner.

If your species showed affection by rubbing against others and you trusted the creature not to step on you, and you were trying to act all sweet to beg for food tho…

I don’t most years, unless a friend really wants to do something with me for it in which case I might go along for their benefit. Not really a holiday person in general though.

Ive never had a password continue to not work after doing this, personally, so I must not’ve encountered that reason

When that happens I usually just exit the password reset page without entering a new one and then log in again with the old

Unlike Tararre, who just got kicked out of hospital when suspended of that

Wasnt “messengers sent by one country being attacked by rival they were sent to” a source of a number of historical conflicts? I seem to recall the mongols destroying some empire in revenge over that, at the very least.

Im beginning to think that, as annoying for users and difficult to build a userbase for as it may be, the answer might ultimately have to be for future social sites to charge people for use in some way, be it to create accounts or as a subscription or just for the ability to post/comment/vote or whatever. If it’s no longer going to be feasible to keep bots out, and there’s a financial gain for their use, then they’re going to get used, so at that point it has to be somehow more expensive to run a bot than that bot can be expected to bring in as a result of it’s contribution to an advertising or manipulation campaign, to deter them. On the bright side, I guess it might lead to a shift away from advertising everywhere. Either you charge people and therefore dont need ads, or you dont, and have most of your ads being “seen” by bots, which advertisers probably don’t want to spend money to reach anyway.

I believe that space exploration and development is of such high potential future utility as to become a moral imperative, but I suspect that view will be unpopular given that in recent decades some of the most infamous tech billionaires have stuck their hands and toxic branding in that area.

Ive seen this said a lot here lately, but like, cloud computing still requires computer hardware, so shouldnt an increase in hardware prices make that more expensive as well?

I mean, while that sounds like it makes things more expensive, I’m not entirely sure that it does, given that:

It doesn’t really make sense to run ads unless the average person watching the ad will ultimately buy enough that they wouldn’t otherwise from the company the ad is for that the extra profit exceeds the ad cost, thus still making watching ads have a cost that just isnt visible

Or, ads might be run to simply get people to switch what product in a category they buy without increasing the amount, in which case, they become a required cost to stay competitive, and because suppliers must now all pay that extra cost, the cost to buy products in that category must be increased, again making the ads cost the viewer in a non-visible way

Or, we could be seeing things like political ads that dont ask one to buy things, just support a politician or policy. However even here, the policies most likely to get ad spending are those most beneficial to people that already have money (since they’re the ones that can most easily afford to run ads) and in general, benefiting those people means giving them a bigger share of the economies wealth, which means the average person has a smaller share when the ads are effective, again costing the viewer in an roundabout way.

If people are going to end up paying for the use of these things in some way anyway, doing it directly seems more honest to me.

When I was a kid: basic printer paper. Drawing is probably part of the intended usecase for a sheet of paper, but I’d also do a bunch of origami and use it to try to make models of airplanes

To be fair, any currently living but older relatives will have had the ability to access high speed internet for just as long as you, but also time with older forms of media as well.

On second thought, this sorta scenario does seem a bit odd. Like, the first person basically admits by implication to snooping around the second person’s personal stuff but expects the other person to be embarrassed by this?

Maybe Im not saying this right: Im wasnt arguing for the virtues of echo chambers with that, Im saying, with how fedi is designed, there is no means to prevent someone that wants to make an echo chamber from doing so, so suggesting that one should not allow an echo chamber to exist is a fool’s errand. In a more general sense, it seems to me that, either you let people decide what kind of content to see, in which case many if not most will naturally create echo chambers simply because they dont want to see views too different from their own, or you have some means to force people to see stuff they dont want to, which requires some difficult-to-escape authority have power over their media feed and as such is incompatible with decentralized federation (and of course risks that authority pushing everyone into their echo chamber). Both of those things lead to serious issues in my view, so its a bit of a “pick your poison” situation when it comes to social media design. Beyond that though, it does have to be acknowledged that there is simply more content, more messages and people wanting to spread their word, out there than any given person has the time or attention or mental capacity to process. That means that some system must exist that determines what fraction of it all you actually see (even if its just as simple as “the things most recently posted on a given platform when you looked at it”). I can see no way to do this that doesnt introduce biases.

I mean, allowing echo chambers doesnt really seem avoidable on fedi tho? Like, only one side has to defederate to break two way communication, so if someone wants to avoid you, you cant really stop them, and the whole concept of moderation in a decentralized system relies on each instance being able to selectively view or block content from other instances based on the values of that instance. You cant really say “what works is challenging people” if the people you want to challenge have an “ignore” button for when you get too loud for their taste.