Yeah totally, but that’s why it links to the threads with the full context if you click on the modlog

Agree to disagree. Shutdown all the ski resorts in Colorado and see what happens to property values over the next 20 years. The proportion of land might be small, but the population and monetary influx is massive.

In order for housing to be expensive, people need to have the money to pay for it. If there’s no high paying jobs within hundreds of miles, and there’s no tourism money, the demand simply won’t be there and prices will fall. Again, look at the Appalachians and the Adirondacks for example. Ever since the advent of air travel, they’ve been steadily depopulated and economically depressed, as people from the cities prefer to vacation in more remote locations, such as the Rockies.

I should also acknowledge that a lot of land out west is owned by the government or other major groups, and that probably also plays a role. I’m not as familiar with the real estate market of Wyoming as I’d like to be. But I can’t help but dispute your assertion that prices are high because building is expensive. Seems like a tautology somehow.

If you’re building a brand new house you’re already outside the realm of affordability. In general, rural areas have an excess of housing stock due to the strong trend of urbanization over the past century.

Also, the fact that building in remote areas is expensive doesn’t contradict the fact that ski resorts drive massive real estate inflation in the surrounding areas.

It’s mainly because of the ski resorts afaik. But yes, that’s fair.

Absolutely. That’s true for mountainous regions in general. Lack of navigable rivers, difficulty of transportation, lack of farmable land, harsh climate, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_people

In the modern world we have developed technology to mitigate these issues so you have some exceptions, like the Alps and the Rockies to some extent. But historically, wealth was always concentrated in the coastal and agriculturally productive regions.

Bodies of water? Sure, that land can be pricy, although not in every case.

Mountains? Nah those areas are usually pretty inexpensive, at least in the US. Appalachia being a prime example.

I guess on the bright side at least it shows the text of the comments that got removed right there, and links directly to the thread. So people can easily verify for themselves whether they would agree with the ban or not. It’s more of an annoyance than anything, they can put whatever reason they want for banning you, but they can’t edit your comments or control the words you actually wrote down. So if you stand by what you wrote and others agree with your perspective, it just makes the mod look bad and they can also get removed for abusing mod powers.

Ah, the ole’ fiddler/diddler switcheroo.

The Diddler on the Roof does sound like it’d make for a captivating musical though. Shades of The Nightman Cometh.

Indeed, sorry to hear that

I’ve always wanted to see a mod list that breaks down “local”. Like, you look at .worlds modlist from the main page, and it’s every mod action from every federate instance.

Yeah that’d be nice. Modlog has always left much to be desired. Although the core concept is great, it’s not fleshed out enough to be as useful as it should be. Sometimes it can even be weaponized by rogue mods to slander certain users. Because when you ban someone, that mod action is permanent and you get to put whatever text you want as the ban reason.

It definitely needs work but I can understand other things taking priority, considering most users will never interact with the modlog anyway.

I think they were joking but they might just be old. Smacking the shit out of your kids used to be normal not so long ago.

I feel you homie. But honestly 50-100 years is plenty, that’s a long time to be alive. Based on what you said, you understand that this shit gets exhausting after a while. But then again, sometimes memories can be more enjoyable than the actual experiences. It’s very common that we experience things in life and don’t fully appreciate them until we look back in hindsight.

Mainly if you are physically healthy and able to live comfortably in society, you should enjoy it as much as you can, because most other people don’t have it as good and they still find a way to make the most of it.

To answer your question, never. I just wanted to do my own thing and read or play video games, it seemed better to avoid my parents’ attention rather than seek it out.

I already gnu that.

I’ll see myself out

Why does this sound so natural when I imagine it in Darth Vader’s voice?

There’s always Cannabis. I’ve heard the local wildlife loves that plant

I wasn’t even aware that there was a reason to avoid HDMI. I have always used HDMI for everything. How does that factor into your moral high horse?

Am I the problem? Am I responsible?

In short, I subscribe to the validity of modern science, which tells us that an animal is an assortment of cells, the behavior of which is (ultimately) described by the laws of physics, which are deterministic. Philosophically, I would fall into the incompatibilist camp, which maintains that determinism and free will are not compatible.

This is a succinct explanation of the incompatibilist argument.

You may also find this article informative.

When I say going after the end result, I mean going after the consumers rather than the producers. It’s similar to punishing drug addicts rather than drug dealers. A futile effort.

Another comparable situation would be trying to get consumers to stop using plastic straws and expecting that to solve climate change.

The crux of the problem

Incorrect, it is both.

They might both be problems, but only one of them is the crux. The reason why supply side is the crux is because it’s the only side that we have some control over. We don’t have control over the private behavior of the billions of individual humans on this planet. We can’t really control demand without commiting some major human rights violations. But we do have some control over what businesses are able to do legally.

I don’t believe in free will so I can’t really hold average people responsible in such a basic way.

Ultimately, trying to solve the problem by going after the end result just isn’t going to work. Even if you want to blame the end users personally, you’re not going to solve anything without going after the source of the problem, which is the development of the technology in the first place, along with the availability and lack of regulation.

You could make similar arguments about using computers or social media in general tbh. The crux of the problem isn’t that people are using the tools that are made available to them, it’s that tools are being made available without properly considering the long term negative consequences, and only with a view towards short term profits.

Nah, I’m aware of how many lurkers there are. I’m not assuming that the accounts were created by some shadow organization or something.

But from the perspective of people who are actually getting downvoted, it just feels bad.

She said “But I only vote when a post is actually breaking the rules. So I can be punished for voting? Okay, then I just won’t even vote on piefed”. That’s the truth about this stuff: There are billions of people out there using social media in a way you will never be able to relate to. Because everyone is different.

I get it. But in cases like that, I think it’d be fair to argue that people are using social media in a counterproductive manner. Like for those who only downvote and never upvote, I question that behavior. All of those posts and comments that you enjoy don’t just come out of nowhere, people are actually putting time and effort to create them. And the only reward they get is upvotes.

Furthermore, upvoting is the way that you push quality content to the top, so that other users will notice the better content instead of missing it. It’s a critical part of what makes the whole community work. So if you systematically ignore the upvote button, you’re not being a responsible user of social media, you’re more of a leech that contributes very little and takes the contributions of others for granted.

And I don’t blame people like that at all, because traditional sites like reddit are so oversaturated with content, much of which is made by bots as well. So in that context, upvoting doesn’t matter nearly as much. So I think people simply don’t understand that even as a lurker, your upvotes and downvotes have consequences. It may seem insignificant for one person, but on the scale of thousands of lurkers, in the context of a relatively small userbase like we have here, it becomes clear that they are playing an active role in shaping the direction of the platform as well, despite not saying a single word. I only came to understand this after spending time on Lemmy, so I don’t expect people to just instinctively understand it. Which is why it’s important to educate them.

I’m ambivalent about it. I’m no fan of AI, but on the other hand people were having fun in that community and it seemed pretty harmless to me. I think when it comes to AI, it’s probably more reasonable to go after the companies who are spending billions developing it, rather than the common people who are just using it because it’s there and it’s free.