I don't think there is a way to have both the option to host images and have zero risk of getting such image uploads. You either completely disable image hosting, or you mitigate the risk by the way image uploads are handled. Even if you completely disable the image uploads, someone might still link to such content. The way I see this there are two different aspects. One is the legal danger you place yourself when you open your instance to host images uploaded by users. The other is the obvious (and not so obvious) and undeniable harmful effects contact with such material has for most of us. The second, is pretty impossible to guarantee 100% on the internet. The first you can achieve by simply not allowing image uploads (and I guess de-federating with other instances to avoid content replication).

The thing is, when you host an instance of a technology that allows for better moderation (i.e. allowing certain kinds of content, such as images, only after a user reaches a certain threshold of activity), actually helps in a less obvious manner. CSAM is not only illegal to exist on the server-side. It's also illegal and has serious consequences for the people who actually upload it. The more activity history you have on a potential uploader, the easier it becomes to actually track him. Requiring more time for an account before allowing it to post images, makes concealing the identity harder and raises the potential risk for the uploader to the extend that it will be very difficult to go through the process only to cause problems to the community.

Let me also state this clearly: I don't have an issue with disabling image uploads here, or changing the default setting of instance federation to a more limiting one. Or both. I don't mind linked images to external sites.

I am sorry you had to see such content. No, it doesn't seem to go away. At least it hasn't for me, after almost 2 decades :-/

A database that’s crummy (but functional) is an important issue, but one that seems like it can wait.

That's often the problem with how software is perceived by a user. Simple functionality might introduce complexity in already existing functionality effectively breaking it at the scale it is supposed to support. The technical aspect of a piece of software will always seem secondary for the end user, regardless of the functionality it appears to be second to. That's only logical. You don't care about a certain metal's properties when you buy a knife, you care about the kind of cuts it can perform.

My issue with the project is that it's mostly written in a language that I am not familiar with, and much of the scale it's built to support is over a protocol that is also new to me. I can't really judge whether the issues (especially content removal and how actions are synchronized between separate federated instances) are a database issue, a protocol issue, a sub optimal approach to the complexity or even just doable in the current context.

Designing and implementing properly and fully working transparent software is always hard. And in new protocols and contexts is even more so.

You are correct though, these things are not important for the people who use it. What is important for the users is how the piece of software can, and if it can, allow for the use they want to make of it.

Well, I am sure many are tempted.. I am waiting to see if a berson decides to carry the ring so I can offer my axe :p

I am getting old.

When I was a kid, my parents, my siblings and I would go to very crowded beaches during the summer. Sunny weather, vibrant colors, cool water. It was nearly impossible for me to bother with whatever everyone else was doing. My attention was focused to everything that was fun and new to me. I would swim for hours, climb rocks and attempt the most challenging dives I could, run on the wet sand. Even build castles!

And then, gradually, every next year each summer visit to the beach would become less magical. Every next year, my attention would start to focus less on the beach and more on the people. And not just people who were calm, friendly and enjoying themselves there. No. I would focus on people who were rude, stressed out and annoying. Loud people who would disregard everyone else around them.

Until, at some point, it started actually feeling bad visiting crowded places. Felt like there was no way I could enjoy being at the beach if I were to share it with other people. Now, I can point you to places that very few people know how to reach. And they are great. As long as you have your own company.

I envy my kid self. If you were to ask that kid what it felt like to be at the beach, you would get a lot of excitement and zero negativity.

Now, even though I will mostly avoid crowded places it's not always possible to do so. So, when I end up in a crowded place I actively focus on what is important for me to enjoy my time. Laughter is music for my ears. Kidding around my friends, swimming and all the good stuff my kid self knew how to do better. I try. Sometimes I succeed, others I feel old and tired ;-)

There was a time before google's search engine, when all the previous attempts had not managed to become the dominant entry point for the web. During that time, we would find interesting web pages through people and/or specific interests. Then, google came, and for a time it was good (read like The Second Renaissance Part I story from animatrix). Ads and SEO were not everywhere yet, content mattered more than those two. So, while I came here to suggest what @bbbhltz@beehaw.org commented, when I read your post text I thought that maybe, at least for what we tend to constantly look for news, articles and discussions, we shouldn't constantly rely on search engines. For example, most technologies have news letters, weekly/monthly magazines, mailing lists, community boards or other forms of group communication through which you can gradually discover better content sources (individuals or groups) on what interests you. Without the search engine service and its cost (direct or indirect) between you and the content.

So, the rock is the guy that carries muscle mass 7 - 10 times what normally fits his frame because of steroids supporting it instead of his gonads, right? Obvious answer then is -no. Not unless you are blasting all kinds of PED.

I am no expert by any means, but my experience (in decades of sports and experimentation) is really close to a study I 've seen in the past, that proposed 0,8 to 1,6-2 grams per kg of bodyweight. I go for the upper limit when I increase activity (especially strength related, instead of endurance), I go for the lower limit when I decrease activity. Been healthy and strong during all this time.

As for food I try to find the least amount possible my body needs to process (why overload my vital organs? is there a good reason?) in order to support my lifestyle (active, and heavy on sports). Going for the most amount possible without a good reason, I consider greedy and harmful for both the environment and the rest of the people. Resources are not limitless.

As for the expensive part, protein exists in cheaper foods too, not everyone relies heavily (or at all) on animal products. Simple (cheap, especially if you prepare them yourself) examples: legumes & beans, seitan, tofu (and all kinds of tofu related products), tempeh. Especially legumes & beans are incredibly rich in most of the other important nutrients too. One might consider vital wheat gluten a protein powder (almost 80grams of protein in 100grams total), even though its lacking a bit in the amino-acids that legumes/beans are full of, comparing the price it has with an actual protein supplement makes it pretty clear what overpriced means.

Placing orthotics bellow your arches is very harmful in the long term. In general you shouldn't prevent your foot doing what it is designed to do (big heel drops, fat soft shoe soles, orthotics) unless there is a problem (read injury) and only temporarily (until you recover). So are narrow toe-boxes in shoes, your toes should be able to move freely and naturally. If they can't, the restriction will create irreversible (read: even surgery won't completely fix what they cause) problems, that mess up all the bio-mechanics of the leg. I wish I knew this when I was younger, working 8-10-12 hour shifts (yeah, I know), as a waiter/barman.

Btw, it might sound counter-intuitive, but proper running, relaxed and a little each day (even as little as 10 minutes) can help getting your legs stronger, relieve stress, restore fascia (without stretching, static stretching never ever worked well for me) and keep it flexible and strong, reset nervous system firing patterns on your shoulders (moving your hands like you do in running with the proper form is way more effective than PT exercises like trap-3-raises for the traps) to counter balance the amount of time you spend looking down, help re-align your spine, and pretty much invigorate your whole body.

But most importantly, rest and eat well. This will be the defining factor on whether your body will adapt and get stronger or not, and how long it will need to do it. We are supposed to be standing all day (not facing downwards though), your feet shouldn't be the issue here, your neck & shoulders are the part that is assuming the unnatural positions for extended periods of time, so as often as you can break them and do some gentle full range of motion movements (a.k.a dynamic stretching) the better.

Regardless, good luck with your new job! :-)

Great topic! Looks like a very fun book to read too. So do the Sapiens books mentioned in the article. Nice.

In this scenario, “Bob” is a hypothetical guy who believes that a woman has cut in front of him in line at the supermarket checkout. He and the woman get into a brief shouting match before she informs Bob that she’d just ducked out of her spot in the line to replace a carton of eggs that turned out to be cracked. He apologizes, and that’s the end of it—except someone recorded the incident on their smartphone, then uploaded only the shouting match, reading all kinds of deplorable motives into it. “The video need only include a hint of cultural asymmetry,” Rose-Stockwell writes:

It may be seen as an angry outburst by a man (Bob) toward a woman (the other shopper). Or a Democrat (Bob) toward a Republican (the lady). Or any heightened reflection of their implied group identity. It can be repackaged as an example of a troubling trend in society. People who feel this way who see the clip now have an opportunity to explain exactly why it’s offensive. They can link it to a larger narrative that may have nothing to do with the actual event itself.

That outrage is often stoked by journalists, who, Rose-Stockwell notes, “are shockingly susceptible to reporting on this kind of thing,” furthering what he calls “trigger chains: cascades of outrage that are divorced from the original event.”

This is so common.. And not only with incidents where a part of them can be taken out of context and used to evoke emotional response related to rage.

To clarify, I have no problems with people who eat meat in general, especially if it’s for survival. I just don’t get the people who also claim to actually like animals, claim to care about animal rights, claim to care about whether the chicken they’d eat were raised in cruelty-free free-range farms, but also don’t see an issue with killing them.

Two of my four grandparents were raised and lived most of their lives in a small village, that didn't even have electricity until they had kids going to school. Extremely poor with almost nothing of most of what is now common in western societies. So, try to imagine living in a place where absolutely nothing is considered waste. Whatever little objects, their houses, everything they used was made by people who knew how to work with some crude material, whether it was wood or some kind of metal. They relied on animals and small pieces of land to get through each year. Literally zero waste. Composting was not a trend, but a necessity.

Now try to imagine a woman, who had little (no plants, chickens don't lay eggs in the heavy winter, goats don't have young ones to feed, so no milk either, no fridges, let alone freezers) food to go through the winter and would rather eat a little less and feed wild birds than watch them freezing to death (most living animals need food to regulate body temperature, among other things). Same thing I would watch her do during all seasons. She would always leave fruit on the trees during spring and summer just so that birds would have something to eat near her house. Fruit that was essential to her nutrition, because it was extremely limited, but she did it anyway.

Now try to imagine this woman, butchering a rabbit or a chicken or a goat. Because she did. Feeling no remorse or any negative emotion. And was pretty good at it. The same person who would get furious if someone mistreated a living animal in her presence.

There is some order in life, which is lost on people who never had a chance to see anything except an urban environment. If you were to meet a person like that, who pretty much embodies the supposed conflict you think exists in this behavior, and you talked in the manner you wrote this comment, you probably wouldn't even get a response. Maybe a smile, maybe a shake of a head.

If you actually want to get how both those actions (butchering and eating a living animal, and caring for all living animals -even the ones you know you are going to kill and eat at some point in their life) can be done by people in peace with their actions, if you really want to do that, to understand, probably the best way is to find people living like this and spend a month near them. Live and observe.

This comment is not meant to justify all the wrongs of how livestock is treated on large scales in pursuit of profit. Neither people eating more meat in a week than their ancestors probably ate in many months. I am not interested in debating this either. Just pointing out that this was the way of life of most people in the past. How long ago, depends on where you were born on this planet.

As a cyclist I have to say, this is so bad and on so many levels that I couldn't stop laughing. Many bike lanes are made poorly, but this is clearly one of the worst I 've seen.

For most people, eating bugs is only natural.

So, while we globally enjoy this heat wave, most of us hoping for lower temperatures. While some discuss the political aspect of this, which really is large, already established, economic interests resisting alternatives. I am just going to quote something near the end of the article.

Insect farming is arguably much more efficient than cattle production. One hundred pounds (45 kilograms) of feed produces 10 pounds (4.5 kilograms) of beef, while the same amount of feed yields 45 pounds (20 kilograms) of cricket.

I’ve seen multiple times about “having to write an essay to be allowed in”

I am not really active on any other nodes. I am new in the concept of federated lemmy instances and completely out of touch with mastodon or any other social media based on similar principles (I only check beehaw announcements in situations like yesterday), so I have not witnessed this (or maybe most of what @Gaywallet@beehaw.org refers to in the OP). But I felt conflicted in the opposite direction when I decided to sign up after having read the documents. After a couple of weeks of lurking and watching the application of what is described in the documents I actually wanted to write an essay in the sign up form and I tried quite hard to keep it short ("It will be read by a real person"). After more than 2 decades in various online communities and platforms, there simply are way too many reasons that justify what I was feeling. Which can simply be summarized as "I am really very happy I found this community".