TheEntity

(._).

The hexagon already knew the question so it answered before the question was even asked. It all makes sense.

I’m pretty sure I’d end up as a just as “cute” woman as I am as a man. Nah, thanks.

Wow, that’s cereal!

I’m pretty sure the same operation without Git (or another VCS) would be infinitely more troublesome, not less.

Yeah, car crashes usually have other victims too. There are better ways.

Time to show only the first 3 words of the title.

Does Lemmy need to grab more users in the first place? I’d rather interact with people genuinely interested in such a model, not salty refugees seeing it as a compromise inferior to what they lost. Nah, I’m good as we are now.

deleted by creator

My point was that they don’t even verify the email address you provide. It can be anyone’s address.

The last time I checked, they didn’t even require clicking any confirmation email. Every time I visit a McDonald’s I reinstall their app and just create a new bullshit account with a temporary email which I don’t even need to check. For all they know, you might have created an account with my email and agreed to the terms (just an example). It’s unenforceable on so many levels I’m dumbfounded.

How are they even going to prove a specific person agreed to these terms or even used their app?

A wild Jynx appears!

The commit history is trivial to rewrite.

In both cases the host opens every door but one.

Not an American here, so please correct me if my take is completely wrong. My understanding is that while the highs are possibly higher than in a lot of places, the lows are also much lower and possibly easier to reach. You could be doing perfectly fine one day, and then you get hit by a hospital bill ruining your life. It’s surely a great place to be a billionaire or even just plainly well off. Except far too many people aren’t and they would fare much better elsewhere.

There will always be someone unhappy, but let’s make them unhappy with mild annoyances and not serious privacy violations. I’d rather prefer the Whatsapp users to be unhappy than the Signal users. In a long run it’s doing them a favor.

/subscribe

Good point, I didn’t consider the bot scenario. I can see it working here. Same thing with very obvious bad actors. What I oppose is using it as a regular punishment for regular users just crossing boundaries.

I can see where you are coming from, though I must disagree with the implementation of this system. Firstly, it’s applying a de facto punishment without ever informing the target about them being punished in the first place. For all we know they might not even be aware they should refrain from certain behaviors. Secondly, they either did deserve a punishment or they didn’t. It doesn’t need to be a “ban or not ban” situation, I’m all for more nuance (a warning, a short-term ban, you get the idea), but we shouldn’t just put anyone on probation just in case, just to observe them in isolation first.