YouTube has been most reliable for me. If you see someone showing their process/results and multiple people do it the same way, that's a pretty good indication that it's worth trying out.
If that's your idea of reversing the order, then you're not talking about the same thing as SpaceCadet@feddit.nl. They're talking about the order of operations and the associativity/commutativity property. You're talking about the order of the symbols.
I'm not sure where the goal post was to begin with. I just thought it would be important to be aware of how we're all contributing to the project so that we can make an informed decision. I haven't thought this through enough to have an opinion on whether we should boycott either Framework or Lemmy.
We're you not just arguing against having laws to disallow stabbing? If not, then I'm not clear on what you mean by "controlling others".
"Radical acceptance"
Couldn't this also apply to abuse of power? Accepting that there's the possibility of bad outcomes, and that's the cost of certain benefits, like protecting everyone from some easily preventable causes of death. It sounds like maybe what you're arguing for isn't that exerting control over others in and way is universally bad, but rather that bodily autonomy needs to be protected above all. But if that's the case, I don't understand why you think it's only acceptable to protect it by not actively doing something that violates bodily autonomy, and why it's not okay to actively protect bodily autonomy (e.g. preventing others from inserting undesirable sharp objects into your body, whether that be a knife or an injection or anything else).
The Republicans centralized power in the presidency with the USA Patriot act [...]
I agree that centralization is power is problematic, but this is a whole other problem independent of bodily autonomy. Unless you're saying that controlling others is only bad when it's done by a central power? But you're also making arguments against mandatory vaccination in general, so I'm still unclear on what your stance is.
You're not directly paying them, but by being here and contributing to the community, you're providing value to others who would then go on to donate to the devs.
Depends on how reliable you need this system to be. For example, do you need to handle the scenario where an adult verifies their age to access a website, then lets a minor use that website in their place? That would be a much harder problem to solve than if you just need to verify that an adult was present on the other end at one point in time. For the latter, device-based age verification seems to be trivial to set up from a technical standpoint while fulfilling that criterion.
prepare for what situations you run into where you know it's possible to be stabbed
And what might those preparations look like? How does one prepare for that, as well as for the possibility of getting shot, or being run over by a car while on the sidewalk, or getting mugged/pickpocketted, or getting your credit card information stolen, or having your home being broken into and ransacked, or someone picking up your infant and running away with them, or having your drink/food spiked, etc.
Get a vaccine. Nobody should every be able to take that right from you.
A vaccine is never 100% effective. If it were, then we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place. 3% of people receiving the measles vaccine don't get immunity, and there's those who can't get the vaccine because they're too young, or are immunocompromised in some way. What option would they have for dealing with their own lives without controlling others?
So I can legally/morally stab someone who tried to stab me? How is that at all helpful? I don't want to stab anyone.
How would this translate to the measles situation? If someone gives me measles, then I'm allowed to give them back measles? But they already have measles. That's how they were able to transmit it. And I'll still have gotten the disease. I want to maintain my health and not get infected in the first place.
There are people who are fully owners and don't do any labour, and those who subsist entirely on their labour and don't own anything. Would it be fair to say that the middle class is anyone who works but still owns a non-zero amount of appreciating or revenue-generating assets?
Not even if it's a career she genuinely enjoys?