ReallyKinda

Agreed, probably depends a lot on where you live though.

Oh no, how will people know if their opinions are right or wrong without our top most social ethicists?

Downvoting because the footage is right there

Indeed, it’s pretty clear in the video, which is at the very top of the article, that the car didn’t accelerate at the shooter.

Controversial stuff of course, but people here seem less likely to take the context of the post or comment into consideration than they did on reddit. The instance or community something is posted in doesn’t seem to make a difference. On lemmy you get a ton of public gut reactions like you would on twitter. This is opposed to a forum-style where posts only face ‘real’ public scrutiny if they become popular in their respective communities to the point where they hit the front page. Perhaps with more users this effect will diminish, although if mastadon grows substantially our posts will be viewed by a large number of people twitter-style which would substantially impact interaction quality imo.

At my first full time job my supervisor specified that I could hang up on anyone who brought up their lawyer, used abusive language, or brought up the BBB.

Before Spanish colonizers arrived in the region, the area held a village and a massive shell mound with a height of 20 feet and the length and width of a football field that was a ceremonial and burial site. Built over years with mussel, clam and oyster shells, human remains, and artifacts, the mound also served as a lookout….The Spanish removed the Ohlone from their villages and forced them into labor at local missions. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, Anglo settlers took over the land and razed the shell mound to line roadbeds in Berkeley with shells.

Geeze

Democracy was dead from the beginning, the ‘founding fathers’ were afraid of the masses and the structure of the government is a reflection of that. On top of that the dominance of political parties (which George Washington warned against) makes it essentially impossible to vote for someone who generally shares your interests which is what you’re supposed to be doing in a democracy.

That statement also admits that this is in line with protocol, Idk who in their right mind would call a protocol acceptable where 3 guys show up to a distress call with guns and can’t manage to deescalate one kid with a hoe without loss of life.

You can make fresh spinach last longer if you layer in some napkins/paper towels (something something moisture, I don’t really know the science).

People are always like “it doesn’t do anything we couldn’t do with SQL,” as if riding a horse isn’t an improvement in transportation over walking. Things don’t have to be impossible to accomplish in any other way in order to be marginally more useful or efficient depending on the goal. Public ledgers are indeed useful. Blockchain is one technology among a small handful that might be appropriate for your project depending on trust dynamics it demands. Consensus protocols are also useful.

One example, right now our global food supply’s movement and distribution is based largely on market dynamics. Say we want to focus on distribution based on need instead. A blockchain based ledger could allow a fred to ‘commit’ a few bushels of carrots which george ‘commits’ to transporting to mike, who in turn has committed to do do a supply run to Uruguay with his barge. Could they have done this in excel? Probably. Would it be more organized on blockchain? Yes. Would a regular database with a lot of contributors that is carefully designed to keep out bad actors work too? Yes, sure.

Science, the mode of inquiry, is great and generally requires a broad consensus before something is accepted. Singular studies should be processed with a few grains of salt—academics aren’t immune to bias or faulty reasoning.