This might be tricky, given that Lemmy is federated [1]; there’s no guarantee that deletions will be federated to all instances — eg an instance could defederate from the rest of the network after your content’s been pushed to it.

If you don’t mind answering, out of curiosity, why do you want to mass delete your old comments?

Plus I cringe at the thought of 75% of the CBC budget being spent on content moderation.

Theoretically, could they outwardly federate only? For example, they make a post which gets pushed out to other instances, but they would set their instance to not allow any external posts or comments to be federated into their instance, and they could close registrations. That way, the rest of the Fediverse could follow and interact with their content, and they wouldn’t have to deal with moderation. I’m not sure if that’s really how federation works, so please correct any inaccuracies.

[…] treat each Lemmy community as a community, not an audience.

I think it depends on the community in question, and the nature of the post. If, for example, one is looking for an answer to a question, or help with something, I would argue that one would, generally, want to target the largest relevant audience to maximize the surface area of potential people who can help. At any rate, more specifically, I don’t think it’s one or the other, but rather both — one would want to find the largest and the most relevant community. By my experience, another common behavior is to cross-post to multiple communities. This seems to be especially more common in a federated forum like Lemmy where there could be any number of duplicate communities.

I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. I was outlining an example where the outcome is favorable by all parties, but the principles used to arrive at the outcome differ. If I understand you correctly, you seem to be describing an outcome that wouldn’t be favorable for all parties.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10

I think the implications here is that the reasons it gets legalized can have an impact on the specifics of the policy.

Could you elaborate on what you mean?

Just write a description in the main post and put the link in the reply. This just stops lazy linking.

I agree with Elon’s sentiment in this (though sticking a link in a reply is kind’ve inelegant — imo, Lemmy would be better for this, as it has a separate title and body). This is something that bothers me on Lemmy; I’m not super fond of the practice of simply copy-pasting articles from news sites into posts; it feels very lazy and spammy. Lemmy is under no obligation to repeat the clickbait and misinformation that a news site may be compelled to use. When an article is shared, I think that it should, in general, be used as a source to back up a claim rather than the entire post itself. Posts should be human oriented rather than just an outlet for news spam.

It’s really unclear, to me, what these tables are even saying. What’s each column?

And parents are held responsible if they give it to kids

Imo, only if it can be proven that the parent is being willfully negligent regarding the safety the child.

Also, if a product that claimed to be safe, but actually wasn’t, was purchased and given to the child, then this responsibility should fall on the producer only.

Yes, but it shouldn’t be legalized for the wrong reasons.

This is kind of an interesting thought, imo. If one agrees with the resultant policy, does the rationale used to get there matter? Perhaps it does in principle, but I wonder if it matters in practice. The end result is the same.

[…] ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine […]

I’ll be honest, I don’t really understand this one. I’d guess that this is likely some hold over grudge from COVID, but I don’t really understand why it’s still a concern to get, presumably, more open access to those drugs. Aren’t we long past that conversation? Feels like beating a dead horse.

[…] raw milk […]

I’d support raw milk being legal for consumers to purchase so long as the manufacturers of said raw milk could be held to account for harm caused to a consumer who purchased it under the belief that it was safe — likely, this would also mean that, if it isn’t safe, the product containing raw milk must otherwise display explicit warnings. I think a person should be allowed to take take their own risks.

[…] psychedelics […]

I’m glad that it seems like the war on drugs is showing cracks. I completely support a move to legalize psychedelics.

Based PSA of the “appeal to authority” logical fallacy!

As far as I understand it, a client app using UP to recieve push notifications does perform a registration step with the UP gateway (via the distributor app which communicates with the gateway via its own transport), which sets up and responds with the api endpoint details, which the client app relays to its servers, which can then send UP notifications via the specified gateway.

So, if there was to be encryption done by UP, it would be handled by the gateway? For example, for Matrix, it would then be handled by the Matrix gateway in Ntfy [1]?

At least with Windows, most people know what its normally like at home, but thats less true for Linux.

Yeah, that’s a fair point that they wouldn’t have a comparison, so they wouldn’t know if it’s always like that. One could perhaps make an educated guess, depending on circumstance, but, without any first-hand experience or exposure, it would be just that: a guess.

Hypholoma fasciculare

Hmm. I at least don’t think that it’s fasciculare. The stipe should have a collar [1.1] (though, I question this as none of the images I see seem to shop a collar), which this doesn’t. The caps should be convex [1.1], which they aren’t ­— the babies are somewhat, but the mature one’s are wavy. From the picture’s that I’ve seen, the color is also off ­— they’re shown as more yellow [1.2][2], where this one is not yellow ­— the color of the specimens that I’ve observed is, in general, very different.

Hm, but I’m not sure people would attribute that to the design of the underlying OS itself rather than just the employer. Like do those people with restrictions on Windows blame Microsoft? It’d be the same as someone blaming the Linux maintainers for employer placed restrictions on an OS running Linux. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure someone would still do that, but I’m not convinced that the majority would think that way — I think most people would be able to make the distinction.

I still expect it to be done in the open, one of the things Munich got right was upstreaming all their changes, which meant that even when it was cancelled, nothing was lost. Maintaining out of tree changes is just way to much work

Would you be able to cite a source for this Munich program? I’d like to read more about it.