OK, you’ve convinced me, I’m going to delete my account at this point.

When I first found Lemmy I genuinely thought it was an improvement on Reddit. People were nice, I didn’t see the dogpiling and general assholedom that I saw on Reddit, conversations seemed civil and reasonable.

As time’s gone by, that’s become increasingly clearly untrue. I unsubscribed (and blocked) the technology forum because of dogpiling, initially others, then me when I agreed with the others (who weren’t saying anything uncontroversial… outside, apparently, of r/technology.)

Things have not felt civil in other groups, but they haven’t been as bad. But now I have you reposting a comment I deleted and calling me spineless. And for what? Because I felt I should withdraw comments I was making regarding a domain I’m not an expert in? This, apparently, now, is “spineless”? I’m supposed to arrogantly nerdsplain my views on the constitution to everyone and I’m a coward if I step back and say “I’m not an expert in this, I shouldn’t be posting”?

What the fucking hell.

And yes, I know, “Lemmy’s not at fault, it just has a few people who aren’t…” Stop, just stop. It has more than “a few”, it’s positively infested with them. It’s actually worse than Reddit. I didn’t have to put up with this kind of crap on Reddit anything like as frequently, and I speak as someone who actually got banned from one subreddit in the last year.

Lemmy’s federated nature is a good thing, but unfortunately it seems to lack the qualities needed to ensure its user base understands the need for quality discussion. Going below Reddit in this respect is difficult, but Lemmy has managed it.

It’s a nice experiment, good luck to you, all, but you’re not for me. Sorry.

I shouldnt have used a fedrally illegal substance as an example 😀

No, it was good, because while it wasn’t your intent, it kind of underlined the original point. There’s a reason the federal law exists on this, and on the movement of firearms, and so on - it’s because states can’t actually do this kind of regulation. They can make it illegal for their own citizens to order things, but they can’t make it illegal for citizens of other states to send things.

There are obviously some small exceptions to the “If it happens in another state and it’s that state’s citizen, it’s our of our jurisdiction”, but they’re so complex legally that most of the time the laws are passed on a Federal level to make certain it passes constitutional muster.

The state could argue that a warrant for performing an abortion isn’t legal as the requesting state had no jurisdiction where the supposed crime occurred. This isn’t required by the law though, so it may be up to the arrested person’s counsel to raise that argument, keeping all the risk on the person still.

So I guess this is a good reason for Newsom signing this law, it pretty avoids the risk on the person.

No, it’ll be ignored because it’s mostly unnecessary. Any rendition is extrajudicial - Texas cannot prosecute a Californian with no presence in Texas for doing something in California. California has absolutely every right to treat the forceable transportation of a Californian citizen to Texas backed by no constitutional law as a kidnapping.

Note the laws that cover your non-issue about rendering are to protect Californian doctors, not Texan patients. The other laws, that protect patients, such as the social media company restrictions, do not cover anything forbidden by the constitution.

I’m pretty sure a Texan law that criminalizes a Californian (in this case a doctor) for something he or she does in California is unconstitutional, and therefore California has every right to punish bounty hunters that try to enforce it, social media websites that try to help enforce it, etc.

The big problem with blocking GA altogether is that GA is usually how people who put together websites find out what browsers people are using to browse those websites.

And if you’re about to say “But they can just look at the user agent in access.log!”, sure they can, but those are in logs that are accessed by sysadmins, not people trying to find out how their websites are used. The first thing someone who’s trying to find out how to optimize their website does is go into GA. If they see no Firefox users in GA, then they don’t care about Firefox compatibility. They may even filter it out to prevent bots.

In order to fix the tracking cookies thing we need to do more than block a popular tool for getting website metrics, we need to understand why it’s used and provide alternatives that respect privacy.

This feels like more of an operating system issue than a hardware issue. What you’re looking for is a way to reduce the power it sips while still allowing downloads to happen. Leaving aside the edge cases like OS updates others have mentioned, the major issue is that applications aren’t structured like that.

If I have Firefox open with one tab displaying a website that runs 1,102 javascript routines all the time in an attempt negotiate a really good advertising deal for each of the banner ads it’s showing - you know, the type you visit and your machine starts crawling and the fans start blowing almost immediately - and another open on Ubuntu.com where I’ve just clicked on the “Download Ubuntu desktop ISO” button, only Firefox knows which of those tasks can be backgrounded and right now (as far as I can see) there’s no API in any of the major OSes where it can say “Send me this signal and I’ll only do the thing that can’t be interrupted.” nor “I’ve put the stuff that can’t be interrupted in this thread, so only run this when you’re trying to save power and nobody’s using the computer anyway”)

Would it be a good idea? Well, that would depend on whether developers actually use that API if it ever comes into existence. I’d like it, I just see it being one of these well meaning things that devs would avoid using because it complicates their code and probably makes it easier to break.

Oddly enough, the Gen Zers that have decided not to talk to me or my wife, because they can’t stand disagreement, are our nieces and are both rabid Trump supporters (well, unfortunately I currently live in Florida) and couldn’t stand the fact my wife made a joke at Twitler’s expense.

Not that I’m complaining, I don’t want anything to do with Trump supporters (SEE! It’s US TOO!) so that made it easier for me. My wife is more family oriented than I am and is pissed about it.

All of which is kind of meaningless given the article conveniently forgets that under 25 year olds of all generations (as in I saw it with mine) traditionally (1) tend to be more politicized, (2) tend not to have the practical social skills to understand the need for tolerance and (3) quite honestly, the country has swung to the right recently and being intolerant of fascism is no vice and a mark of being a human being, so anything they’re seeing with Gen Z is simply an amplification, thanks to (1) and (2), of what’s actually happening among all generations.

If people want me to hang out with them, they can stop wanting LGBT people killed, can stop supporting politicians who are passing laws denying life saving healthcare to women, can stop calling everyone who disagrees with them pedophiles (and can stop supporting groups that actually support pedophiles like the big three churches), can stop supporting the murders of black people by law enforcement and “white people who think they’re law enforcement”, and so on. 'cos all of those positions are extreme. And horrible. And you don’t get a pass in my home for having them.

I think the implicit assumptions about the “Police carry insurance” thing are:

Qualified immunity protections are replaced by insurance carriage

LEOs have to pay their own insurance (presumably with a pay hike that’s the “average” insurance payment

Without QI, LEOs would be liable. Insurance companies can certainly force LEOs to fight court cases, but the costs of doing so will fall on the insurance companies. An LEO that’s constantly a problem will find themselves in court a lot, and will end up costing the insurance company a lot, regardless of whether it’s just legal fees, or massive damages to their victims in addition to legal fees. So the insurer will force them to pay ever increasing premiums, and eventually they won’t be able to afford to be in law enforcement.

Most of what you’re saying would undermine the existing professional insurance requirements for doctors etc. Hell, it’d undermine insurance requirements for driving!

Also remember insurance companies rarely insure just one thing. You may get a carrier that specializes in LEOs, but in practice like most insurers it’ll cover a wide variety of different types of liability insurances, directly or indirectly. So it’s not necessarily in its best interests to defend LEOs regardless of what they’ve done. That just encourages bad law enforcement, pushing up its costs elsewhere.

The only thing I can think of (aside from the remote possibility that someone’s trying to move something very wide along the walkway and their way is blocked by 1") is that it’s very pseudo-OCD triggering, which definitely would put it in the Mildly Infuriating camp, just not in the way that is normally posted here.