Yes. Return rate influences future product design.

There are several options. Sometimes they overlap:

• Direct gain such as romantic opportunity from sabotaging a rival or items of value from theft. Some people are callous about the harm caused, while others rationalize it as necessary or justified.
• Retribution or justice. Most people are happy to hear that a child molester will receive abuse from other prisoners, to give an example.
• Sadism - direct satisfaction or pleasure from causing pain to others. This is unlikely to make much sense to those of us who aren’t sadists, so it may have to be enough to just know it exists.

Now consider politicians promising to harm some out group and people voting for them. It’s a combination of the first two: the politicians attempt to gain elected office by convincing people that the out group is evil or dangerous and promising to do something about it. The voters believe these cruel actions to be justice done to vicious criminals.

And before you admonish and ridicule these people for not going to such and such website to get the truth etc.

Clearly everyone who isn’t getting their news from Lemmy is irresponsible!

Sure, there are valid complaints about the media, but anyone who heard Trump say

I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have

and still voted for him had everything they needed to know better, and who didn’t hear that excerpt from the Raffensperger call?

For example, it feels like many people bind their identity to a cause so tightly that admitting any fault feels like a betrayal of the whole.

That’s exactly it in a lot of cases. More on that here:

https://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html

How was anyone expecting the guy who openly tried to steal an election after losing to be anything but lawless?

Hibernation is, in fact fully powered off.

I see no betrayal here. He said what he was going to do, and the trees voted for the axe.

I found this response appropriate.

They’re not in this sociocultural-religious equation as they’re not locals.

I think you’ll find the equation would not work if they were removed, so they must be a part of it.

Most Western societies are much less explicitly based on religious scripture, though as others have noted negative attitudes toward polygamy may be rooted in Christianity. Some Western societies, such as the USA explicitly forbid establishing an official religion, but cultural norms are still based on the dominant religion.

Modern ideas about equality in Western societies are not based on a religion, but on how people decided they want things to work. Until about 50 years ago, women did not have legal equality in many Western countries, and a single woman was often unable to open a bank account, rent an apartment, or get certain jobs. A social movement worked very hard to change both attitudes and laws, and now the majority belief is more or less equal = same.

Qatari women are provided with household staff by their husbands to make their lives easier.

How does this work for people who are not extremely wealthy, such as members of your household staff?

This one gets more complicated the longer I think about it.

My first pass was to imagine humans just as we are aside from the ability to die. Many things about how humans are don’t make sense without death though. Pain, for example likely evolved to cause organisms to avoid stimuli that could lead to their death. Fear largely derives from the anticipation of pain. Would true immortals have either? I imagine the psychology of such creatures would be vastly different from our own.

There’s also the question of what form the immortality takes. If it’s possible to destroy someone’s physical body, but their soul can immediately manifest a new one, and pain doesn’t exist, then doing so is just an inconvenience. If bodies are impervious to any damage or alteration, a large category of crimes vanishes.

It would probably come down to some sort of long-term imposition on the freedom of others, but it’s really hard to guess what that would look like.

Sort of. This is apparently done on-protocol so anyone can issue verifications, but they’re only shown in the official client if they’re from BlueSky or someone approved by BlueSky.

A better way to do this would be to let users subscribe to verifiers the way they can labelers. Better still would be for the label to indicate what the verifier has verified about the account, like “nytimes.com says this person is an employee of the New York Times”, which is something labelers can already do.

So I really think they should have just leaned into labelers.

Not currently. I’d have one again under the right circumstances.

Hydroplaning on a motorcycle

Some people have privacy expectations that are not realistic in an unencrypted, federated, heterogeneous environment run by hobbyist volunteers in their spare time.

It you have something private and sensitive to share with a small audience, make a group chat on Signal. Don’t invite any reporters.