I’m gay

  • 42 Posts
Joined 10M ago
Cake day: Jan 28, 2022


Well, California has a distinct problem - our state allows for any law to be on the ballot given that it receives enough signatures. This is a double edged sword. It allows for the constituents to put issues to vote that the state legislature is unwilling to put up for vote or pass as a law, but it also allows for corporations and other people to push legislation that ultimately benefits them. I don’t know the full story behind this one, but it likely was pushed forward with good intentions but got soured by the typical political process.

Sadly, this will do close to nothing

A report by the Controller’s Office estimated that there are only about 4,000 units potentially affected by the new tax. Units exempted from the tax include single-family homes, duplexes and units under construction, among other exemptions.

Technically they’ve allowed it for some time, but only this last year did someone point out that it could be interpreted this way. It shouldn’t be there at all (and to date it hasn’t been used in this fashion), but I also suspect this will get changed in a year or two, knowing the climate in SF.

The way you insist on this makes me think you are assuming bad faith on my side which is not the case. I don’t like this.

Apologies, I’m trying to understand what makes this time frame unique- what you feel is not addressed by the existing studies. I did not wish to impart any feeling of attack or that I am questioning your faith, I am merely wishing for you to elaborate upon your concerns.

The following is found at the top of the page on the third link

  1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review)

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the U.S., where there are more guns, both men and women are at a higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

The following items 2-4 also address this

  1. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide
  2. Across states, more guns = more homicide, 4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

This isn’t the only study among those linked which compares risk factors of gun ownership and gun carrying across different locations in the world where laws and rates differ. I’m confused as to how this does not answer your question, as there is a plethora of literature which directly correlate gun carry rates with increased risk of homicide. The only difference between the linked article and the studies on this is the specific timeframe studied… is there something special about 2015-2019 that a doubled carry rate compared in another study would not adequately forecast or explain?

What is it about the years 2015 to 2019 that are special? Located within the studies listed are evaluations of gun legislation, gun ownership, gun carry rates, and outcomes (notably spanning different periods of time and across different locations in the world). Do you believe that this does not adequately capture the gun related changes described in the article linked?

You don’t need to look far to find a plethora of studies linking firearm legislation and firearm injury but I suspect this isn’t really about whether its worse for society but whether your risk goes up and what contributes to the risk of firearm injury. Unsurprisingly, owning a gun increases your risk of firearm related injury in the same way that being in a country where guns are used to shoot at people (such as the US) also increases your risk. The harvard injury control website has some high level findings that are rather easy to consume if you’re looking for the biggest factors.

Their hobbies likely aren’t causing them to have negative feelings, whereas their work more likely is. Humans are somewhat biased towards needing to vent and talk about issues which cause them negative feelings that they have to do.

People also talk about work for a variety of social reasons. Most importantly, perhaps, is that people often measure social standing by their work. Where they work, what jobs they have, how much money they make, and other characteristics of work are important for many human social evaluations. Because this is important, it becomes socialized as something that you should discuss, and thus becomes a common topic of conversation. People then internalize it as something they should talk about, or is interesting to talk about. It’s a self sustaining model built upon the foundations of social worth and evaluation, supported by the emotional needs of humans.

Interestingly you’ll see that in certain circles where social worth is not derived from your work (minorities in which upwards mobility or potential jobs are limited often talk less about work) but from other aspects of your life (talking about children is a favorite for those who have them and artists love to talk about their creative pursuits) that you’ll find conversation drifting towards different topics instead.

I think the best thing you can do, if you find this boring, is to attempt to redirect conversation away from work and towards something you’d rather talk about. People will naturally drift back towards conversation that they find useful, interesting, or have been socialized to do and ultimately you may need to tolerate this or find a group of friends less interested in talking about their career. I’ve generally found that quips which highlight it’s silly to be talking about work away from work (such as when participating in work offsite trips) or highlight how work is just a means to make money and I’m disinterested in talking about capitalism and would rather know the person and what they find interesting tend to work well to divert conversation away from chatting about work.

Tell that to people unwilling to leave twitter because they are struggling to find content on mastodon. The major benefit of big social media companies is typically that they provide an algorithm to content that people find interesting by paying an invasive amount of attention to what you do on their websites and how you interact with content.

While not everyone is as interested in an algorithms idea of what we would like to see or content we would enjoy, to ignore that many people out there are very interested or to paint it as purely a means of advertisement ignores why some humans are still on these platforms and the source of their attraction.

oh no, pressuring advertisers by speaking to them is destroying free speech

Not just that, they’re often way less nutritionally useful. Nearly all alternative milks have very low protein content. It would be trivially cheap to add in a small amount of whey protein or use less sugar, but for some reason I haven’t been able to find a brand that does. At most they focus on making it analogous to milk when it comes to frothing for coffee…

Not to nitpick too hard, but it sounds more like they can distinguish between strangers and their owner, and that when exposed to audio of their owner talking, they can distinguish between two tones - those humans typically use with other humans and those humans typically use with animals and infants.

Interesting science. Thanks for sharing!

Pretty much everything cited here more or less doesn’t acknowledge the influence of digital replacements for in-person ones. A good example of how this is poorly framed interpretation of science, is to look at modern science focused on collaboration. Without spending too much time going into the details, here’s two papers that I think frame some of the high level ideas reasonably well. Measuring human to human interaction is a complicated science and humans are often more adaptable than people think.

When organizations first dealt with the idea of open offices and how tech was changing collaboration, much of this science began to really hit the mainstream. Technically speaking, this field has existed for a much longer period of time, but the widespread adoption of the ability to chat online really pushed us into a new style of communication (you also see some very interesting papers on this back when the telephone caught on and how that replaced in-person interaction). Modern practices in the science help to understand how/when people prefer to interact with each other with a focus on optimizing collaboration in a corporate environment, but some papers focus in on the quality of the interaction - the latter has seen a huge surge in literature since the COVID-19 pandemic as more people were forced to interact at a distance, rather than in person.

I think as a whole we’re only barely beginning to understand the affects and effects of digital socialization on a human, and I would caution against making broad statements on, well, just about anything at this point. While one can easily point to some of these negative outcomes such as an increase in the rates of depression, one can similarly say the same of any mental illness as we are also getting much better at recognizing mental health issues, de-stigmatizing the treatment of mental health, and are currently existing during a period of wealth consolidation the world has not seen for at least a century. We could also just as easily point towards other indicators of health and wellness which have been rising, how the younger generation is more tolerant and diverse than we’ve previously seen, is more ecologically conscious, more aware of the issues with capitalism, more connected than ever, interacts with a more diverse set of people (there’s probably a decent study or two out there that looks at how questions about “friendship” could be updated to reflect a uniquely online world), and other positive outcomes which were not cherry picked when writing this article.

Of course this is not to say that there aren’t also downsides to differing forms of communication - I suspect how much a certain person vibes with in person contact, over the phone contact, video contact, voice contact, text contact, and other mixes of digital communication modalities will vary significantly from person to person. It is vitally important to highlight the ways in which our change in interaction modalities have an effect on our health and well-being, but we also need to be careful about jumping to conclusions which are not supported by the data. For a long time I used to identify as an introvert because society used to define introversion as staying at home in your room all day or interacting with a computer, which I did a lot as a child, but it wasn’t until adulthood that I realized that narrative doesn’t make sense when the time you spend in your room or on a computer was spent interacting with people. This jump in logic is a subtle one, but analogous to what’s going on with this author and often happening when people unfamiliar with human interaction science attempt to interpret data without expertise.

That enables companies like this to take advantage of troves of information to set prices while leaving individuals and families struggling to keep up.

Even if individuals had access to this information, it’s being set by a single source. If companies are unwilling to adjust prices to meet demand, and simply set it to what a single source says they should, what leverage do individuals truly have? How many of the individuals will have the time and energy to investigate the source? Once they investigate the source, what actions can they take?

One might make the argument that they can simply not purchase the service, but is this realistic for something like housing? Would you rather be homeless or pay more than you’re comfortable paying? When a company is gigantic enough to survive a significant period of time where they aren’t making profits or has enough holdings that they can float some empty units in order to make more profits int he long term, what levers can affect the way the company operates if they are secure in knowing that no one else will undercut their prices?

At the end of the day what’s lost on these free market fundamentalists is that supply and demand are concepts to describe a **free ** market. If the market is dominated by a single interest, it is by definition not a free market. As you rightly mentioned, most of the time nowadays, larger interests tend to be on the seller/supply side and they have an imbalanced power dynamic with consumers/demand side. This imbalance leads to a market not being a free market, and fundamentalists tend to ignore a nuanced take on power.

I mean, entirely unsurprising, but I’m glad I wasn’t the only one with this thought when that story broke.

It’s not just libertarians, it’s extremists in any direction, really. Rules are about a sense of stability and safety in a community. This leads to two kinds of ideologies, both of which are often at play on some level.

The first ideology and in my opinion the most important one is an ideology which sets rules designed to protect the members of the community based on ideas which are shared across the entire community (or close enough to the entire community). Ideas like “don’t kill people for no reason” are pretty universally human, protect human communities pretty well, and in general are not controversial. Other ideas such as protections for minority groups within a community may garner a bit more controversy from some, depending on how ostracized the minority groups are and how they contribute (or damage) the community. On the internet this manifests with rules which are pretty universally accepted such as no posting of child pornography

The second ideology is one of setting rules via populism or trending towards the average opinion. There are both good and bad rules which sit in this category and a lot of it depends on how the rule is framed or what it is intending to do. Rules which enforce social norms, such as “girls must wear dresses”, tend to do a lot more harm than rules which might aim to protect well-accepted ideas which face some controversy but are not quite at the level of universal acceptance such as “gays and interracial couples can marry”. These kind of rules on the internet typically resemble “free speech is protected” on the permissive end and “transphobia is not allowed” on the protective end.

However, as you mentioned, rules are not just what is explicitly written and codified. Rules are also reflective of how the community treats people. You don’t need to have a law which says “no black people” in a rural community in America with deep-seated racist issues - this kind of behavior is simply reinforced by the peers in a community when they condone or condemn behavior they witness, by the conversations they have, and how they act around people from within and outside the community who push back against these unwritten rules. The core principle of Beehaw is formed around providing a framework which is designed to support the latter, with a focus on curating a community which represents a particular set of ideals designed to be protective and supportive, as it’s a kind of community we haven’t seen often online and a community which we wished to participate in.

I remember when congress “investigated” big oil for making record profits during the last recession

big whole lot of nothing came of that, I remember thinking ‘well that can’t be good for the rest of capitalism’… and here we are. Cat’s out of the bag, government doesn’t want to do anything about it.

Absolutely absurd that something like this can exist and it’s not considered price fixing

To be clear I wasn’t suggesting it should happen without a transparent log (and a very visible one, not one that’s hidden in the modlog) that it happened, such as by having the original title in small text and the moderator who changed the title attached to the new title. This was mostly a use-case to keep things clear and understandable. As it is someone could post a lot of relevant links and just title them all “Article” for example or “Read this” and it wouldn’t be particularly useful and just leads to a lot of moderator cleanup.

I would perfectly be okay with the original title being displayed somewhere and an indicator that a moderator changed the title. If this is something you don’t want to allow, I understand. To be clear, the situation I’m describing is where someone decided to post an article with a modified title which happened to be kinda clickbait-y but mostly just removed any context of what the article was until you clicked into the post where you can see the linked pages title/heading.

From a user perspective, they may not be particularly responsive. If I remove a post after replying to it, how does a user experience this? Will they be notified their post is removed? Will they get my reply in their message box? If they edit their title and I wish to reinstate the post, is there an easy way to do so, and how would this affect sorting if it took say, 2 days for the user to respond?

There’s a lot of legitimate reasons to re-title a poorly titled post. While I can just remove anything that crosses the line, my guess is the user experience of this kind of behavior would be undesirable. In this case I liked the linked article, but the title of the post made it very unclear what the article was about. I don’t want to have to iterate a bunch of rules, either, to help explain the thought process of why an article being re-titled to be extremely clickbait-y might warrant a moderator action but another post in which someone didn’t match the article title perfectly was fine.

Re-title a post?
Is there a way to change the title of a post someone else created on a community you moderate? If not, can we please add this functionality

Beehaw is a community
From the early stages of conceptualization of what we wanted to do differently, up through the feedback we've been getting as Beehaw has been growing, there's been a consistent narrative and push back from certain individuals about how we've decided to run things here. To be clear, these are the individuals whom are either on the fence, those who are not enthusiastic about our mission and voice it elsewhere, and to a lesser extent comprise of some of the individuals we have since banned from our platform. The narrative typically takes the side of 'open/free speech' is tantamount and that any suppression of said speech is unwelcome (typically said in a much more hostile way). As I've experienced this push back, I've slowly gathered my thoughts and realized what I believe is a fundamental disconnect between those who have earnestly and openly adopted our platform and those who fight against it. Beehaw is a community. Communities are organic. As a community grows and shrinks, everything about the community fundamentally changes. Most online social spaces don't operate as communities on the same level that communities do offline. When communities are run in a way that the members of the community do not like, the community often splinters, or leaders are ousted. Websites tend to have much stronger incentives to stay on a platform and leaders (platforms) are much more resistant to this kind of natural control by the members of the platform (you can't exactly overthrow Facebook). However, communities still need to have some kind of rules, and because the size of a community is much more amorphous online (in general also much larger), the default state we're used to online is one of semi-authoritarianism with explicit rules. If you've ever spent some time deeply involved in an offline community, especially if you've done so as an organizer or otherwise involved in the management or running of a community, you're probably at least somewhat aware of the kinds of discussions that communities regularly need, in order to keep them running. Communities are not perfectly homogeneous, and many communities value diversity. However, get enough humans together and there will always be disconnects of values, boundaries, wants, and needs. Navigating these disconnects can be as simple as ensuring that two people don't sit near each other at an event or as difficult as engaging the majority of the community in a discussion about what kinds of behavior are acceptable and what aren't. Discussions happen at all kinds of different levels and involve different groups of people to reflect where the disconnect happened and involve the parties necessary to resolve the disconnect as well as to manage the emotions, needs, wants, values, or boundaries of people who were hurt when this disconnect happened. If you're not familiar with running communities, you're probably at least aware of this from simply living with other humans. It's rare that two people both desire everything the same- disconnects over how clean a house should be, where to place objects such as kitchen utensils, how to interact with or ask for permission to use objects owned by another person or that are for shared use, and other such disconnects are commonly discussed when cohabitating with another human. These discussions can be as simple as asking your housemate to clean their dishes within a day of using them to allow for the space you like in a kitchen when cooking or may be as complicated as months or years of discussions, debates, or fights and can cause a serious strain on the relationships between the involved parties. Many children are often ecstatic to move away from their parents because they've been strained by these kinds of disconnects and the often inadequate resolution of conflict. While there are some limitations with regards to governance and some design considerations on the kind of community we would like to grow here, ultimately Beehaw is a community and at the core of that community is the desire for a stronger community experience. One thing that offline communities do a much better job at, is navigating these discussions. Online communities often operate at a scale which being cold is the only feasible way to operate a platform, and thus explicit rules enhance the ability to scale moderation and enforce behavior. Unfortunately, this kind of framework results in pushing out minority individuals, reinforcing an echo chamber and in some cases promoting some very not nice behavior. Our goal is to create a platform in which nice people will want to stick around so that the experience is less toxic than other websites and because of such it needs to resemble an offline community - the rules must be more open to interpretation and the way the rules are interpreted needs to be a community effort. Which brings me to the reason I'm writing this post in the first place - many free speech advocates and others who've pushed against the lax rules have offered suggestions of making the rules more explicit, of weakening the need for community discussions. Many individuals who've participated on this website and received bans have explicitly resisted having a discussion about whether their behavior was acceptable or not. These are both incompatible with the vision of this website. We want this to be a community - this means that discussions about behavior should organically arise. When someone violates a rule they aren't banned immediately, but rather reminded that they need to behave appropriately. In the offline world, this might resemble a friend asking you about how you treated their friend, a pastor pulling you aside and talking to you about how you've seemed on edge lately, or security asking you not to vape inside their establishment. What this resembles depends on the severity of the behavior, who's around to witness the behavior, how others react to and respond to said behavior, and a variety of other factors. The more severe the behavior, the more severe the reaction. Extreme measures are reserved for the most heinous of actions and the analogous behavior online (preemptive banning from our platform, de-federation, etc.) is treated with the hesitancy and respect it deserves. Someone being banned from an establishment they've never attended doesn't happen out of the ether - it happens because people in the community express this wish and it involves a serious enough crime for it to be justified (such as a history of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or other heinous acts). If you're worried about how our rules are explicitly open to interpretation, that's on purpose and I hope the text above helps to clarify the vision that I have (and others of the community share) around how I'd like to see this community evolve and what we'd like to think we're doing differently on this website. I'm not banning people for no reason or simply because they don't agree with me. I want people to disagree with me. I want diverse opinions in here. But I also **need** this place to be nice and members of the community need to be willing to hold each other accountable in creating that kind of space. Of note, I've never banned a single person without openly discussing what happened with other individuals who participate in this community and asking for their input. I can't promise this will always be the case, but I can promise that I'll be open to having a discussion with any community member who feels that something unjust happened with another user or to themselves.

Man shot dead by officer at funeral while hugging aunt
> “I went to hug him because he was upset, and next thing I know they just yelled ‘Jason!’ and they ‘pow, pow, pow, pow, pow,'” Odell said. “I about got shot. I felt the compressions of the bullets. It was horrible.”