I disagree. Most people are able to self-regulate in more instances than you give credit for. In instances where someone is unable to do so, I would agree that a full prohibition probably makes sense; such as with alcoholics who are unable to stop themselves, but this is not the case for most people.

Interruptions - fear not the notification, for you hold the power to calibrate your notifications to the level that suits you. I’m particularly aggressive about disabling notifications and especially notification categories that do not add value, and you can too.

Resisting - many humans have reported experiencing even more enjoyment engaging in activities they enjoy if they delay their engagement until meeting a predetermined goal. If you know that scrolling through your favorite app for 5 min will give you a dopamine hit, you can choose to delay using the app until after you’ve completed a chore, for example, and that may offer enough incentive to complete more tasks than you might otherwise be able to perform.

Being held accountable for outputs provided

So what happens if you try to sleep outside? Do the cops pick you up and bring you to a shelter where they provide a bed, meals, and a roommate named Bubba who thinks you’re purdy?

Conservatives are so short sighted - this is just giving handouts with extra hands and limited humanity.

Yes, I too salivate at the idea that I could simply disappear all of the ideas I disagree with, but that is exactly how to turn a community into an echo chamber.

So I have users A B C D E F who are known to me who have voted on a given post. D and E are idiots I disregard their votes. F literally hates everything I love so I count his votes inversely. A and B are fantastic I count them x10 I tend to agree with C so I count his x2.

What you are suggesting here is, as I’m understanding it, a way to only get feedback from people you agree with and to never experience a critical discussion of ideas based on their merits.

Now, I’m not here to suggest that Lemmy is some kind of shining beacon of drama-free intellectualism, where every idea is discussed without bias or agenda, but I DO think it is valuable to hear from people whose lived experiences led them to a different conclusion than the one I’ve reached. Obviously there needs to be a mechanism to remove trolls from the discussion, but I fear a world where we only see content that we agree with, because then we will truly be removed from reality, and that’s not why I’m here.

“If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.”

Given the strong presence of the privacy community on Lemmy, I have to say that I’m a bit shocked to hear so many in these discussions chiming in to support voting transparency.

I’m on board with the idea of using ring signatures to validate the legitimacy of a vote and moderating spammers based on metadata.

Or, for something (potentially) easier to implement, aggregating vote tallies at the instance level (votes visible to your instance admin and mods) and federating the votes anonymously by instance, so you might see something like:

• lemmy.world: 9 up, 2 down
• discuss.tchncs.de: 3 up, 4 down
• Etc

Up/down votes are the method of community moderation that sets Reddit apart from many other platforms. If the Lemmy community is trying to capture some of that magic, which is good for both highlighting gems AND burying turds, radical transparency isn’t the path to get there.

In fact, I’d argue that the secret ballot has already been thoroughly discussed and tested throughout history and there are plenty of legitimate examples of why it would be better if they were more secret than they are today.

Many people have brought up the idea of brigading, but would this truly get better if votes are public? Is it hard to imagine noticing that an account you generally trust has voted and matching their vote, even subconsciously?

For those who feel that they aren’t able to post on Lemmy because downvotes make you feel sad, my feeling is that if you make posts in a community and they consistently get down voted to oblivion, you’re in the wrong place. The people in that community don’t value your contributions, and you should find another place to share them. This is the system working as intended and the mods should be thankful that such a system has been implemented.

The last point I’ll make is about the potential for a chilling effect - making users less likely to interact with a post in any way due to a fear of retaliation. Look - if you’re looking for a platform where all of your activity is public, those are out there. Why should we make Lemmy look just like every other platform?

Underappreciated punch card computing reference here.

The vast majority of the international community does not recognise Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights.

Tl;dr Israel is illegally occupying land, and people who used to live there are…

*checks notes*

Upset about it? Weird.

If Israel has a right to defend itself, why don’t their neighbors have the same rights?

D’oh, of course. Britain said it was probably fine, don’t worry about it. Quick, let’s all enforce the insane borders due to our historical tendency to support misguided decisions made by Britain as it’s imperial power contracted and they used the opportunity to fuck over as many Muslims as possible.

As an atheist, all of this bickering over which version of Abraham’s assertion of paternalistic traditions is more correct is exhausting, but if we’re going to try to make a case that liberal institutions are effective, everyone needs to follow the same rules. Israel doesn’t get a free pass because Britain said they were extra special that one time.

To be clear, I’m not calling for the end of Israel. They’re there now and they have lots of guns so maybe don’t fuck with them, BUT we can’t seriously act shocked when Israeli settlers continue to illegally settle lands outside of Israel’s borders and they face resistance. The behavior is abhorrent and should be condemned as such.

Critical thinking isn’t your strong suit, is it?

He said fellow man, not fellowman, as in he is suggesting that people in France and Germany take exception to the indiscriminate murder of other human beings, of any religious affiliation, taking place as a result of the Israeli occupation of Gaza.

How you weren’t able to comprehend this with your clearly superior reading comprehension skills is a mystery that is too ridiculous to comprehend, so we are left to wonder.

I’m an atheist but find religions fascinating as a concept. From what I understand about Judaism,

It’s just kind of proper fucked being Jewish.

Is the essential Jewish experience that has been passed down to you by your ancestors for millenia, so at least you have that going for you?

This is a detailed breakdown so thank you. I guess the tl;dr is that it’s a combo of ebay, luck, and filling in the gaps. Sounds about as complicated as I was expecting if I’m honest but I appreciate you taking the time to write it out.

Your setup: goals.

Where are you sourcing your hardware? Decommissioned enterprise DC stuff or are there options outside of the enterprise space that enable this type of setup?

This seems like an entirely plausible explanation, thank you.

Based on the article, it sounds like dying of exhaustion is par for the course when it comes to elections in Indonesia; does anyone have any insight into why that happens? If the current process is so treacherous, are there calls to make it safer?

Platinum! 😂

Sure, but what would that even look like in practice? Russia would be staving off a protracted insurgency that could last years. We know from Afghanistan that they don’t do the best with insurgents (who does though?). It’s certainly possible, but it’s not the outcome I’d bet on.

The longer russia wages war with Ukraine, the less of a threat they will be in the future.

Agree 100%. IMO this is the biggest reason that NATO has thrown so much support behind Ukraine - they’re weakening Russia, which strengthens NATO. Further, it provides a peek into the capabilities of Russian armaments vs those that NATO chooses to share with Ukraine, further validating the claim that NATO firmly holds the upper hand in a theoretical conflict.

I read through both of my responses again, since I couldn’t recall suggesting that the best option would be to turn the other cheek, and it turns out that I remembered correctly and actually didn’t say that. 🤔

To clarify, I haven’t been suggesting that I’ve found a solution to this problem, merely that I think that the way in which we are currently trying to solve the problem is not a solution.

If I need to solve x + 1 = 2, I can consider infinite solutions that are incorrect without needing to solve for the correct answer; 0 doesn’t work, 2 doesn’t work, etc. I can do this without having the answer to the original problem.

In this instance, we’ve been trying to solve this problem with violence and cruelty for quite some time now, and I’m simply of the mind that if it was going to work it would have done so by now.

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

It doesn’t take a military strategist to know that this wasn’t the right response. Terrorism is an ideological threat, it cannot be defeated or “rooted out” by conventional weapons until you kill every last person who finds it worthwhile to fight for the ideology. Out of all of the diverse peoples of the world, you might expect that the Jews would understand the gruesome impracticality of that goal.

Oh yeah that totally makes sense, and I’m not excluding the possibility that it could have been Hamas. Both sides are involved in some pretty fucked up shit, nobody’s hands are clean here.