I did some really basic searching and it looks like something like Yunohost might have some ActivityPub modules, and it does have some blogging modules that might work. I have not used this, so I can’t say how good or bad it is, but it seemed to have potential.

I wish it were “against all odds” but by my observations, the probabilities are a lot higher than I would like.

deleted by creator

Goddammit. It’s my moronic senator behind that. Figures. I’m not sure he reaches Tuberville or Inhofe levels of stupid, but he is a terrible person.

Ms Greene is apparently unaware that human beings have sex, and thus is astonished when she discovered the younger Biden engaging.

“If Russia is listening right now…”

“Stand back, and stand by…”

Yeah, he’s not even subtle about it.

Yeah, it should have been a A level criticality – functionally impossible to relay bad information, tri mode redundancy, shut down if it detects itself in error, etc.

I don’t know if it’s technical detail translating poorly into journalism, but from reading up on it, I don’t believe it was just a sensor deploying at the wrong time. It was a sensor providing flight stability critical information with no tri-mode redundancy built in (sold secondarily as a “safety mechanism” reporting incorrectly, causing MCAS to react fatally.

I think that “sensor with no redundancy” is a pretty important fact.

I think that’s basically the argument that just puts blinders on and assumes everything is perfect and why pretend otherwise. A comment I’ve read that I think has some merit is that they didn’t put an end to legacy admissions, bias for donors, employee families, and other special recommendations. These are all systems that favor class and are predominantly white. So why did the justices pretend that admissions are all based around merit and achievement when they are not?

If more were being done about the systemic causes, then I think there would be less frustration with this decision. Since we clearly have quite a long way to go on the systemic issues, this ruling is pretty naive in my view.

He hasn’t looked deeply into Robert F Kennedy Jr then… both would be absolute disasters.

I don’t disagree. However I spend most of my time in kbin.social/sub where I’ve already curated most of the groups I care to look at and engage with. I really only venture into /all when I’m kinda bored. Thus, so far, it hasn’t really been too terribly problematic to do that.

It would be nice to declare a language whitelist and have a filter for it, but I suspect kbin has some more important things on the To Do list for the moment, and maybe devs will get around to it when they’ve got a breather. We’re likely going to have another influx on the 1st after the alien site kicks app devs in the nuts.

You can go to that magazine, and over on the right side you can click the block button. It should be right next to Subscribe. I’ve done this for a lot of communities that are in languages I cannot read.

Yes, apparently firing was ‘enough’ /s

(Off-Topic: Nice Nickname!)

As I said in another post, I believe Justice Roberts is trying to haul the reins back from the stampeding conservafascists. Not that his own tendencies don’t lie that way, but he’s widely reported as caring about his legacy, and right now the reputation of SCOTUS for corruption and poor decisions seems to me to be at an all time high. (That is to say, I’m not a deep SCOTUS scholar, just an observer – there might be a time when the organization was worse.)

If I understand right, this is a clarification (of sorts) to the standard of “true threat”. Ken White covers a lot of first amendment speech issues and has a very good explanation here: https://popehat.substack.com/p/supreme-court-clarifies-true-threats

So. To the practitioner, or to the internet tough-talker, what does this mean? It means that the law of the land, at least 7-2, is that a threat is only outside the protection of the First Amendment if:

• A reasonable person, familiar with the context, would interpret the threat as a sincere statement of intent to do harm, and
• The speaker was reckless about whether the threat would be taken sincerely — that is, they “consciously disregarded a substantial risk” that it would be taken seriously.

I honestly don’t know. Nothing Alito or Thomas has said recently has made any sort of logical or philosophical sense. I think Roberts is trying to preserve some semblance of legacy of unbias with the current court reputation which is why I think he’s sided the past few cases where he has.

Holy crap, thank you. I was thinking of the top bar as the shortcuts on Reddit (or Reddit Enhancement Suite) and I turned it on. I have no idea why it would remove the search capability for Magazines since it’s functionally impossible to actually show everything on that line. However, we’re in a new world now. So glad you figured that out. This is the way.

Oh please. I’m done with frowns of disapproval, and strongly worded comments. If R’s think it’s gravely concerning, they should act.

This is tough since it’s a part of the executive branch and as a result not wholly independent of who is in office. It’d be nice to have a wholly impartial investigation organization, but even then it’s still staffed with humans, all with their own virtues and vices, perspectives and prejudices.

It was, in fact, hilarious.