blind3rdeye

That's true on face value. The issue is that accusations of misandry are almost always unfounded, and only made as a way to deflect and to attack women. So when people start talking about misandry, that's generally a red flag.

It's similar to how "all lives matter" is definitely a true and good value - but yet it is almost always said as a way to divert support away from vulnerable groups. So although the literal meaning is good, it is fair to assume that people saying it do not have good intentions.

It's pretty harsh to just casually suggest that a person be a TERF without any specific evidence.

Sure. I agree that's the problem; and none of these analogies really help make that any easier to understanding. Certainly they don't have a "murder as much as you like" policy! (I find that analogies are rarely useful - except for manipulating how you want people to feel.)

Perhaps murder is a bit extreme. It's more like "we've noticed you're taking woodchips from the playground. That's not allowed. We wouldn't mind if you were just taking a few chips, but you've taken 2 tons."

[edit] But putting analogies aside, the service really should make rules and restrictions like this clear in advance. That seems like the real failing here, rather than the rule itself.

I was expecting to see a hex-editor or something as one of the options.

One could argue that they have converted it, but it was done poorly.

In a similar sense, the screenshots and phone photos are not conversions. They are entirely new images.

split personality

Have you read A City On Mars? It has quite a detailed look at many of the challenges. You've pointed to some research relevant to the possible availability of water - which is great, but I think it would be better to say "a major constraint" rather than "the major constraint."

It has a similar problem, but a better version of it.

From my point of view, Lemmy creates its bubble just by being friendly to one subset of views and hostile to another; and so people with some subsets of views don't feel welcome - and they leave. This creates a kind of bubble effect; but I'm ok with that - because frankly there are some views that I really don't want to see here anyway. Having diversity of views is good, but establishing social norms about what is acceptable or unacceptable isn't necessarily a bad thing either.

On the other hand Reddit (in addition to the above effect) also has a big dose of top-down enforcement. Effectively it has a small hidden group of people who can control what everyone else is allowed to say. They can ban certain words and sentiments; and use techniques like shadowbanning or just algorithmic demoting to reduce the influence of stuff they don't like. So they get a bubble as well, but the bubble can be guided and influenced by the people who control the platform. For my point of view, that makes it worse.

I haven't read the books, but I did watch the show... I enjoyed the first half, but the second half had so much implausible bullshit that I couldn't really recommend it. I mean, the first half also had crazy impossible tech - but I feel that's ok because its part of the setup premise. The stuff I didn't like in the second half was more implausible decision making and strategising (and also implausible uses for impossible tech).

In any case, I really feel like they wasted a strong setup. I was disappointed at the end, and I'm not intending to watch the next session.

Heh. I just spent half a minute squinting the dark trees in the background, looking for the outline of a car. I didn't realise the picture was swapped.

I don't know what you mean by favouritism. The reasoning for the phone ban goes something like this:

1. Teachers and education researchers have agreed that children are less productive in school due to mobile phones.
2. But preventing children from using their phones in school creates significant additional workload, due to conflicts and arguments.
3. Various governments have recognised this, and have created a law which can remove the phones without the workload.

If you're talking again about the fact that teachers are allowed phones but students are not, then I'm disappointed. I've put in quite a bit of good faith effort into talking about this stuff. At the start of our conversation I felt that I was answering genuine questions, and perhaps helping clarify why someone might want a law like this. But now I'm starting to feel like that was entirely wasted, because you never wanted to think about it anyway - you only wanted to fight it. That's how I'm starting to feel. Maybe I'm wrong, but this 'how does the law prevent favoritism' seems like a totally bullshit line to reasoning to me.

Different laws and rules target different groups of people for different reasons. There's a huge list of rules and responsibilities that apply exclusively to teachers and not other professions. And there's a heap of rules that apply to children and not adults. There can be different rules for different reasons. As for phone usage, I'd personally be totally fine if all smart phones were phased out for everyone for all purposes across the entire world. But I do think it's a false equivalence to say that if phones are banned for students they should also be banned for everyone else. It a totally separate argument. And note: I'm not introducing this law. I didn't ask for it. I didn't design it. I don't even live in the country that the article is from. I'm only try to outline what I understand to be the motivation. If you think something negative is going to result from this law, you should try to outline what that is. What-aboutisms are not helpful.