@hrisskar it's a scheme to attack the credibility of science and education.

He wants people to debate & challenge him - he will refuse in the face of all evidence to concede that the Earth is round, and he will belittle and insult his opponent who claims it is. Eventually his opponent finds something to do that's more fun than talking in circles while being constantly insulted, and the flat-earther will claim victory when his opponent no longer contests the issue.

Now that he's "won" his debate, the flat-earther can attack his opponent in other ways. There's a number of methods by which he can go about doing so:
- he might imply his opponent's education was worthless since he "lost" the debate
- he might seize on simplifications, take comments out of context, or otherwise draw quotes from the debate in bad faith
- he might simply leave his opponent unwilling to challenge him on other subjects of greater controversy.

The flat-earthers tend to be aligned with the political right. Their end goal is often discrediting fields associated with the political left: race and gender study, climate science, evolutionary biology, etc. Sometimes the scheme more broadly targets higher education in general, which is seen as left-aligned in North America.

Similar strategy is employed by religious (Ken Ham, known for debating Bill Nye on creationism) and political (Steven Crowder, known for his "change my mind" sign) advocates in debate. The way to evade this particular trap is to refuse to allow your opponent to frame the debate such that they "win" if they don't concede.

@snow ... is a lot less than the 100,000 a dentist performs over his lifetime.

It also still gives a *tiny* cumulative dose.

imgs.xkcd.com/blag/radiation.p

@snow @freemo An x-ray every year or so (dose to a patient) is harmless. An x-ray every hour over a career (dose to an unshielded dentist) much less so.

@mngrif @freemo eh, I'm sure they think the same of us: "probably not worth the effort to engage with if they don't even mute gab" or something along those lines. It would be nice if admins didn't erect these kinds of barriers, but there are still people worth following on the other side.

If we're blocked, something is weird about it - you can still search individuals on that instance and view their profiles. So why doesn't the subscribe feature work to pull that in to the home timeline?

@freemo I know this is old, but to follow up: their block list is now published and qoto does in fact feature on it: social.libre.fi/about

Still unclear whether it's a suspend or silence, but notably even the new subscribe feature doesn't catch posts originating there (I'd hoped that would be a workaround).

@realcaseyrollins new followers send you a request instead of directly following you. As far as I can tell, it's most useful in combination with the followers-only privacy setting, because it prevents people from unilaterally privileging themselves to read your posts.

@Ajz my impression is that people who start with a high-level language rarely get comfortable with a low-level one, but the reverse is not true. If you start out with Java or Python, pointers will intimidate you from learning C, but if you first get comfortable with C, the others won't scare you.

It's similar for learning to drive - unless your first car had a manual transmission, there will always be reasons you can justify an automatic as "good enough" and put off learning later.

@realcaseyrollins Corporations have their own free speech rights.

Suppose Alice says something to Bob. Alice's right to free speech does not oblige Bob to repeat that (even if he were directly asked what she said!). In fact, obliging Bob to do so would be a violation of his own free speech rights which protect him from most "compelled speech".

Similarly, Twitter's free speech rights allow them to configure their server so that it doesn't republish certain content submitted by users. That's not limiting free speech; it's a natural consequence of the corporation's own free speech rights.

@Sphinx notice the placement of the slash.
</foo> (slash at the beginning) is the closing tag that matches <foo>.
<foo /> (slash at the end) stands on its own without the need for an extra opening or closing tag.

older-sibling + target 

@Sphinx

There's no dot because that would make the following term a class, just like the number sign makes the following term an ID. Instead you use a space to denote that the following term is a descendant.

"parent item.class" 

@Absinthe can you clarify the situation with dollars? It's unclear whether (a) the US has large- and small-sized dollars, or (b) there is a single size of dollar that can be put into a large- or small-sized wrapper.

@tedvim individual users actually can effectively silence servers. On the web interface, it's in the three dots at the bottom right of each post (except the ones on your own instance, of course - you cannot block your own server). Click "Hide everything from example.com" and you achieve the desired effect.

What you cannot do is *undo* a silence that the instance admin put on. I wish for a feature that says, "Allow me to interact with users at example.com in spite of the ban. I am an adult with a thick skin. If the users at example.com are mean to me, I promise not to go crying to my admin, because he doesn't want to deal with their crap."

@tedvim yes, it does. So if you want to see the full chain of conversation, it's necessary to get the direct link to the post and open it on the originating website.

@tedvim keep in mind that, while you can follow people at spinster, qoto has an instance silence on them - the effect being that everyone you don't follow is muted. So you can't see the whole reply chain if it includes people from that instance whom you're not following, and they won't appear in the timelines either.

@snow if they're on our server show @freemo - block evasion is something he takes pretty seriously.

@freemo @sda @mandlebro @mngrif

What you've written is true in the case where all reference frames are inertial. It is *not* true if the reference frames themselves are allowed to accelerate relative to one another.

Let's take a 75kg man standing in a windowless cube as an observer. He can stand up, and let's say there's a 735N normal force between his feet and the floor. Even with accurate measurements of his mass and this normal force, he still cannot determine his acceleration. Perhaps he is in an otherwise empty universe, and the box is being driven "upward", accelerating at 9.8m/s. Perhaps he is in a uniform gravitational field of 9.8N/kg pulling him "downward", and the box is stationary. Since he can't distinguish between these cases to determine his own acceleration, there is no way he can guarantee that he and an outside observer would agree on its value - it's relative to the observer.

@freemo

That's begging the question a little bit, as acceleration is absolute only because we restrict ourselves to inertial (i.e. lacking acceleration) reference frames. If you allow non-inertial reference frames, acceleration can be relative - Coriolis acceleration, for instance, may be nonzero relative to a rotating reference frame but zero in inertial coordinates.

Show more
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves. A STEM-oriented instance.

No hate, No censorship. Be kind, be respectful

We federate with all servers: we don't block any servers.