That’s definitely true, I probably should have been a little more clear in my response, specifying that it can run at startup, but doesn’t always do so.

I’ll edit my comment so nobody gets the wrong idea. Thanks for pointing that out!

To put it very simply, the ‘kernel’ has significant control over your OS as it essentially runs above everything else in terms of system privileges.

It can (but not always) run at startup, so this means if you install a game with kernel-level anticheat, the moment your system turns on, the game’s publisher can have software running on your system that can restrict the installation of a particular driver, stop certain software from running, or, even insidiously spy on your system’s activity if they wished to. (and reverse-engineering the code to figure out if they are spying on you is a felony because of DRM-related laws)

It basically means trusting every single game publisher with kernel-level anticheat in their games to have a full view into your system, and the ability to effectively control it, without any legal recourse or transparency, all to try (and usually fail) to stop cheating in games.

If you ever find yourself advocating against voting deciding elections in favor of your own personal opinion trumping all others, you might just be a fascist. Of course, he’d probably take that as a complement.

If you can’t understand that both parties will continue the genocide regardless of anyone’s vote, then I think you should reconsider how “rational” you see yourself to be.

Have a good day.

You’re a fucking nazi because you materially support genocide.

Whether I vote in this election or not, the genocide will continue. Whether only one person votes for either party and every other American abstains, or whether every American votes, the genocide will continue. I am not materially supporting the genocide, I am only trying to reduce the maximum amount of people who will inevitably be slaughtered.

because unlike them you’re voting DURING the holocaust, not in ignorance of its future.

Your entire argument is based around ignorance of the fact that this genocide will inevitably happen no matter who I vote for, but that there will likely be a substantially worse outcome if Trump is elected.

Fucking piece of shit narcissist nazi. Amazing coincidence that you feel so comfortable flaunting your pathological self importance in this conversation and have zero value of human life for people outside of yourself in politics. A fucking piece of shit nazi to the bone.

I can see you have no actual point to make, and just enjoy calling other people nazis. Again, good job not answering the actual question. In case you missed it: “You’re arguing that me voting for Kamala is wrong. Cool, what else should I have done? This entire argument is you trying to convince me, so what are you trying to convince me of?”

If you can’t provide an answer to this extremely basic question that directly calls into question your very motive for this conversation, then I have nothing else to say to you.

Good job not answering the question. You can’t just use “nazi” as a buzzword to make your ideological opponents sound worse.

Being forced to vote for the lesser of two evils to reduce overall harm is not the same as actively choosing to vote for the demonstrably more fascist party. If anyone would be closer to Hitler in this election, it would be Trump. If there are only two choices, I will vote for the one that’s less like Hitler to stop the one that’s more like Hitler from getting into power.

The thing is, I don’t really care what argument you’re trying to make, because everything you’re saying is totally unproductive. Regardless of whatever point you’re trying to make, you’re trying to convince me. What should I do as a result of your argument?

You’re arguing that me voting for Kamala is wrong. Cool, what else should I have done? This entire argument is you trying to convince me, so what are you trying to convince me of?

You’re voting for a fascist with different aesthetics.

Democrats, so far, have not shown to me that they are fascist in any meaningful way. They actively engage in messaging and political action that abhors the idea of a natural social hierarchy, have still worked to uphold general democratic ideals, and are still liberal. (among much else) That alone doesn’t meet what most people would consider fascist. They’re simply just not very good, but I wouldn’t go so far as to call them fascists. not yet, at least. If they continue going further along that path, I will always reconsider based on the best evidence I have available.

if you decide to vote for either of the major candidates this time you’re giving material support to a genocide

If the only two options on the ballot are genocide, and even worse genocide, and not picking just increases the chances of the even worse genocide happening, I’ll pick the option that does less genocide any day. I am not choosing to support a genocide, I am choosing between two possible genocides, of which one will inevitably be chosen regardless of my input. I have no choice in whether it will happen, only how badly it will.

I am a utilitarian. When given a limited set of options, if one will reduce the overall harm caused, I’ll pick the one that does the least harm. If I must pick between someone killing 5 people, and someone killing 10, I will pick the one who kills 5. (assuming I have no way to prevent either option in the first place)

This election will happen. One of these candidates will be chosen. It is the same dilemma, a choice where a result will occur, but to what degree it affects the world is something I can influence.

Knowing Trump’s past policy and rhetoric, and comparing it to that of Kamala, and the Democratic party more broadly, it’s extraordinarily easy to tell that Trump will cause more overall harm to the world, not just in the case of the Palestinian people, but of all people across the globe. As long as the opposing party will do less harm, that is who I will vote for in order to reduce his chances of winning. Not necessarily because I support every policy they have, but because I know they will produce the least harm comparatively.

Use your energy organizing.

I can do that and vote according to my utilitarian ideals at the same time. These are not mutually exclusive.

it’s no exaggeration to call you a nazi. Fuck you.

Get me a definition of Nazi-ism and explain how it ties into my rhetoric thus far.

In a system where my vote categorically will not positively influence society if it is used to vote outside of the duopoly, I have two choices, the blatantly fascist candidate that is substantially more akin to Hitler than any Democrat, or the somewhat more mild Democrat.

If I vote for a third party, my vote will only give the fascist a higher chance of gaining power than he otherwise would.

If I vote for Kamala, at least there’s a lesser chance of the fascist winning. That’s a start, and I can then continue advocating for the Democratic party engaging in better actions going forward, engage in direct political action, and do what I can to push the overton window to the left, hopefully making it harder for fascists to get into power in the future.

I do not enjoy this system, but it is the one I live in. I can either vote for Trump, or Kamala. Any other choice simply removes any meaningful effect my vote would have had.

So, what do you suggest I do? I’m serious. Do you think I should have voted for Trump instead?

I’m saying Israel should be given the right to Palestinian land, and that we should support Israel in their genocide of innocent human beings while denouncing attempts to get a ceasefire? Wow, that’s news to me.

I believe there should be an immediate ceasefire, the return of all land taken from Palestinians to Palestinians, and significant monetary reparations paid to the Palestinian people to cover the cost of rebuilding the society Israel bombed into rubble. I believe Netanyahu should be charged for his crimes.

If anything I actually say and do lines up in any way with what you think Trump has said he’d do, I’d be quite surprised.

Your answer is shaming people who oppose genocide.

Trump opposes genocide? Dang, I guess when he said to “finish the problem” in relation to Israel’s invasion of Gaza, released a plan for the Middle East that included giving Israel sovereignty over their illegal West Bank settlements that were the result of their ongoing campaign against the Palestinian people, and told Netanyahu to “Get your victory and get it over with,” while also denouncing calls for a ceasefire, then saying “I will give Israel the support that it needs to win but I do want them to win fast,” he was just joking around.

“1 in 10 people believe they are not at risk when using illicit sources to watch TV, film or sports.”

ONE in ten? Man, they’re even bad at cherry picking statistics 😂

They even cite a study with only 1,000 participants for their statistic that “32% OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN VICTIMS OF FRAUD”

In the title, at least. The body of that claim’s card says that it’s the people, or someone they know that have been victims of fraud.

Gosh, I hate dishonest scare marketing campaigns.

I’m not a big expert on database technology, but I am aware of there being at least a few database systems (“In-Memory”) that use the RAM of the computer for transient storage, and since RAM doesn’t use files as a concept in the same way, the data stored there isn’t exactly inside a “file,” so to speak.

That said, they are absolutely dwarfed by the majority of databases, which use some kind of file as a means to store the database, or the contents within it.

Obviously, that’s not to say using files is bad in any way, but the possibilities for how database software could have developed, had we not used files as a core computing concept during their inception, are now closed off. We simply don’t know what databases could have looked like, because of “lock-in.”

That’s what some databases are. Most databases you’ll see today still inevitably store the whole contents of the DB within a file with its own format, metadata, file extension, etc, or store the contents of the database within a file tree.

The notion of “lock in” being used here doesn’t necessarily mean that alternatives don’t or can’t exist, but that comparatively, investment into development, and usage, of those systems, is drastically lower.

Think of how many modern computing systems involve filesystems as a core component of their operation, from databases, to video games, to the structure of URLs, which are essentially usually just ways to access a file tree. Now think of how many systems are in use that don’t utilize files as a concept.

The very notion of files as an idea is so locked-in, that we can rarely fathom, let alone construct a system that doesn’t utilize them as a part of its function.

Regardless, the files example specifically wasn’t exactly meant to be a direct commentary on the state of microblogging platforms, or of all technology, but more an example for analogy purposes than anything else.

What social media platforms don’t have some kind of character limit?

What platforms don’t use a feed?

What platforms don’t use a like button?

What platforms don’t have some kind of hashtags?

All of these things are locked-in, not necessarily technologically, but socially.

Would more people from Reddit have switched to Lemmy if it didn’t have upvotes and downvotes? Are there any benefits or tradeoffs to including or not including the Save button on Lemmy, and other social media sites? We don’t really know, because it’s substantially less explored as a concept.

The very notion of federated communities on Lemmy being instance-specific, instead of, say, instances all collectively downloading and redistributing any posts to a specific keyword acting as a sort of global community not specific to any one instance, is another instance of lock-in, adapted from the fediverse’s general design around instance-specific hosting and connection.

In the world of social media, alternative platforms, such as Minus exist, that explore unique design decisions not available on other platforms, like limited total post counts, vague timestamps, and a lack of likes, but compared to all the other sites in the social media landscape, it’s a drop in the bucket.

The broader point I was trying to make was just that the very way microblogging developed as a core part of social media’s design means that any shift away from it likely won’t actually gain traction with a mainstream audience, because of the social side of the lock-in.

short form content with just a few sentences per post sucks.

I 100% agree with this sentiment.

Jaron Lanier has a great book called You Are Not A Gadget, where he talks about the way we design and interact with systems, and he has some thoughts I think reflect this sentiment very well:

“When [people] design an internet service that is edited by a vast anonymous crowd, they are suggesting that a random crowd of humans is an organism with a legitimate point of view.” (This is in reference to Wikis like Wikipedia)

“Different media designs stimulate different potentials in human nature.”

He talks about how when a system becomes popular enough, it can “lock in” a design, when others build upon it as standard. Such as how the very concept of a “file” is one we created, and nearly every system now uses it. Non-file based computing is a highly unexplored design space.

And the key part, which I think is relevant to Mastodon, the fediverse, and social media more broadly, is this quote:

“A design that share’s Twitter’s feature of providing ambient continuous contact between people could perhaps drop Twitter’s adoration of fragments.”

Fragments, of course, meaning the limited, microblogging style of communication the platform allows for. I’ve seen some Mastodon instances that help with this, by not imposing character limits anywhere near where most instances would, opting for tens of thousands of characters long. But of course, there is still a limit. Another design feature by Twitter that is now locked in.

But of course, people are used to that style of social media. It’s what feels normal, inevitable even. Changing it would mean having to reconceptualize social media as a concept, and might be something people aren’t interested in, since they’re too used to the original design. We can’t exactly tell.

As Lanier puts it,

“We don’t really know, because it is an unexplored design space.”

Our voting system fundamentally doesn’t allow for third parties to win the vote.

Even if we said “vote for a third party, there’s a statistically significant chance they might win!” this wouldn’t fix the issue, because Jill Stein doesn’t take votes from both sides equally.

Jill Stein leans left, which means people who are otherwise Democrat voters are going to be the largest demographic voting for her.

Our voting system is first past the post, which means this will actually decrease the chance of a left-leaning victory.

Let’s say Dems get 55% of the vote without Jill Stein, and Reps get 45%. Democrats win.

Then, we add in Jill Stein. A significant amount of voters switch over, even some Republicans. (which, in reality, would probably not at all, because Jill Stein’s policies are even further from their beliefs than even the Democrats are)

Dems get 35% of the vote. Reps get 40% of the vote. Jill Stein gets 25%. Democrats & Jill Stein lose, Republicans win.

If Jill Stein were entirely impartial, and took votes equally from each side, then we could have a vote like…

Dems get 45% of the vote. Reps get 35% of the vote. Jill Stein gets 20% of the vote. Democrats win in the same way they would have whether or not there was a third party.

The issue is that, obviously, Jill Stein isn’t taking equal parts of the vote, so this inevitably just reduces votes for Democrats, without reducing votes for Republicans.

It’s not an ideal system, (which is why we should advocate for Instant-Runoff or Rated voting) but it’s the option that will lead to the most left-leaning outcome, as opposed to a heavily fascist one.

Yet another case of “AI” becoming a meaningless word to describe generalized computing techniques that have been in place for years

Always demand a human support representative until it gives you the option to, then the actual human will usually manually process your refund if you complain about how the initial refund never happened.

Bonus chance of success if you’re a Prime member and say you’re thinking about cancelling.

I think if I found out my country was doing a genocide with an unimaginably higher ratio of civilians murdered, I’d decry both acts, and not actively support the ongoing justifications made for a genocide by an apartheid based regime.

As much as it fills me with joy to see fascists like JD Vance get mauled by their own past words, I hate how much this will be propped up as an argument against him today.

I think we can all agree that people change their minds, whether it be from propaganda, malicious intent, or genuine education, so the only thing he has to do to escape this line of attack is just say “my opinions changed.”

I’m sure that to a degree, he still believes what he originally wrote, but has simply repressed it in favor of being able to do less thinking about his political positions, and garner more public attention and power.

I don’t think they believe it works.

I think they just believe that shootings are bound to happen, because why else would they be happening on such a regular basis?

It’s the constant deflection of responsibility, from our choices as a society, to some indeterminate outside force.

Poverty and increasing cost of living? It’s all those darn immigrants.

Your job not paying you enough? Must be overseas industry.

They don’t think their prayers will prevent a school shooting, they just don’t think there’s other options to prevent it that will actually work without “taking away their freedom” (-to own a gun that’s more likely to harm them than protect them)