No. The instance being killed by the taliban is the opposite of that is happening here.
The taliban has done nothing, in this case. The admins of the instance have chosen not to keep the instance due to not wanting to fund the taliban in anyway.
This phrasing fucks up which way the action flows, which is important for a headline to get right to remain accurate to the story. Does that make sense?
I’m interested in where the limits to expectations lie here. I’m not trying to be a jerk when I say this next part but I do worry I may come off that way but I’m trying to figure out the boundaries of what a “reasonable” expectation is so I can make tasks like this easier for my own team (completely unrelated to this project but it’s essentially the same problem).
Is it not reasonable to expect people to type into a search engine something like “GitHub help” and then poke around in the links that come up?
… Well I’ll be damned, I tried my own method before commenting, and the first link that comes up is a red herring, how obnoxious. I was hoping it’d be a link to the docs, not GitHub support. I guess I just answered my own question: no that is not reasonable.
As a technical user, I am still at a loss for how to help a non-technical user in an algorithmic way that will work for most non-technical users x.x guess I’ll be thinking about this problem some more lol
(I guess I’m rambling but I’m gonna post this anyways in case anyone wants to chatter about it with me)
I got a reason! It’s because people are afraid meta is doing what Microsoft did to a much earlier project. The crux of that whole story is that Microsoft adopted the new tech, became the biggest player thus dominating the area, then, when they had full control of the tech they ended up shutting it down. Some people are convinced meta is going to do that to the fediverse.
This is vague and handwavy, I’m hoping someone actually knows the name of the project. It was early 90s I believe or maybe into the early 00s but it was before my time in the tech sphere of the internet.
Seems like we have a fundamental disagreement on what value is. I don’t think society sets what’s valuable and you appear to. I also noticed that we’re drain swirling but that’s likely around the fact that I do not view society as the standard to achieve. Society is a standard that should be guided, not lauded as the end all be all of what reality should be.
Society is not perfect, and it’s social constructs, including money, are essentially bullshit, in my opinion. I think that’s what we’re likely getting caught in. Because I think money is overpowered bullshit, to me, it looks essentially the same exact thing but in different dressage as robux.
I’m likely off topic at this point, it happens. If this seems of no value to you, feel free to disengage. one of my issues is that I’ll keep talking even when the conversation has veered way off lol I don’t mean to waste your time in case that happens.
I guess all I’m trying to say is: you, in my opinion, put too much stock in what society currently is and not enough in what it could look like. The original comment kind of starts to get at what society could look like in a passive meme of a way. I’m personally not sure if society can work without a lubricant like money, but I saw a definition disagreement and jumped on it because that’s what I do for fun.
What do you think about that assessment of the situation?
Oh boy you’re not gonna like my stance on morals :)
And I’m not sure if I should get into my philosophy on language… But, si je parle en francais a tu, it’s as useful as if I hadn’t talked at all to you all, because (assuming you don’t already know French, if you do, replace the example with a language that you do not know and the point still stands) French is a social construct amongst the French, not amongst English speakers. So therefore, different constructs have different values in different contexts.
I guess my wandering point here (because I absolutely agree still with the original poster that money is a made up social construct) is that even though you value money more than robux, it doesn’t give money any more legitimacy, it’s just you’ve decided one is more useful than the other based on the necessities of society. That is not a wrong thing to do, by all means, you need money and not robux to survive in common society, but it does cover up the nature of things in that money is technically just as legitimate a token as robux.
I added an edit that covers the tradable token part.
Their point is they don’t want to give you anything because, per the nerdy ass phrasing, those fake tokens are also tradable for things of minor interest, which is more interesting to have than not have. So why give away the tokens for free?
Their original point is just that money is made up (aka that it only has agreed upon socially determined value)
Oh boy we’ve engaged nerd mode, my favorite!
Robux technically are just as legitimate as dollars it’s just we arbitrarily do not accept robux for milk because it’s new (aka not “legal tender”). If you want legal money, you’ll have to specify lmao
That seems to be the original point of this chain, am I wrong?
Edit: technically legitimate not meaning backed but as legitimate as any other made up tradable token, aka crypto. It might be more correct for me to say robux are technically as legitimate as crypto, but I’m not entirely sure right now about the exact phrasing I want to use.
How did they get mixed? I see 1 in arabic and 2 and 3 in Hindu. Is there a good place to start reading or watching about this in your opinion? If not, I’m just gonna YouTube the history of numbers and see where I land
you don’t have to understand it, you just shouldn’t be a legislative genocidal asshole about it (not that that’s what you’re doing, but that’s what republicans seem to do to anything they think isn’t their slim sliver of a definition of “normal”)
if you’re talking about furries, to my layman’s understanding of the subculture, that’s not how the vast majority of furries relate to themselves. From what I’ve seen, it’s not that they are the animal itself, they are the aspects of the animal, and those things are just little icons that they’re like boosting because they resonate with it. That said, there are at least a few people who DO feel that way, but I’m pretty sure they have a special category name (ferals? I think that’s what they’re called but I could be wrong, this is some deep lore I picked up years ago). If they do have that special name and I’m not just making that part up, then that implies that most furries do not feel that way about themselves.
But, acknowledging the existence of people like that at all does validate your question in my mind. I don’t really understand that extreme either. My only point is that most furries are what you would likely consider “normal”, they just have a particular hobby. It’s no more nefarious or odd than being into gender bending cosplay. You’re just taking something (yourself rather than an anime/video game character) and twisting it into something artistically different (a fursona instead of a cosplay outfit).
…no I did not intend to write that much defending furries but here we are lmao
deleted by creator
…there is a joke here that I could make about incel forums. I’m not going to try to because it’s in poor taste, but my point is that I’m pretty sure that does exist…
Also, what’s your actual position if that’s your devil’s advocate position? I’m a bit unsure if the implication there is intentional or not
The way I (layman) read it, they seemed to be saying that it would be phased out by newer companies finding different alternatives, not that everyone is phasing it out as we speak.
Does this seem more realistic? Or just completely non-factual?
Interesting, I personally wouldn’t actually accuse the UN of being tankie… Maybe capitalist but not tankie… I think if someone makes a convincing argument about the price of oil, it might result in the US or the UN (most likely UN I would wager though) stepping in…
I don’t think the UN will actually do anything though, this is more just me harvesting some hope/cope
Hah! I see the logic, but I think that happened only because the big powers backing each Korea couldn’t push the proxy war to overwhelm each other either way… But then again, I could be wrong, and that could be a viable option here, I really don’t know… The less buried mines on earth, the better, but when you’ve got 1/4 of the population of your enemy, you don’t exactly have the privilege of fighting traditionally either…
Fascinating, that hadn’t crossed my mind at all. The actual world police could do something probably good (stabilizing at the very least) for the situation.
But that said, I don’t think I would bank on the UN for this one… It seems like Guyana would need continual military presence to dissuade Venezuela because it appears that Venezuela is doing this because Guyana was too fiscally successful over the pandemic. But I mean if the UN does long term guarding like that, then it might be a viable option…
With who’s army fighting though? Guyana seems a bit too small to properly be able to defend itself from Venezuela… Unless Brazil goes full on South America police on the situation (and apparently, they might?), I don’t see how this will end in anything other than Venezuela steam rolling Guyana…
You tear yourself apart!