robryk @robryk@qoto.org

@matthew_d_green

A thing that I expect will most certainly not help, but will happen, is the insistence to treat consciousness as a binary classification (in which we might be uncertain of whether something is conscious, but it either is or isn't, and we can try to reason from excluded middle).

@sundogplanets

What's the order of magnitude of equilibrium amounts of metals/nonmetals in the upper atmosphere assuming no satellite burnup? (I have no clue about the processes that would remove material from there, so I can't upper bound all of meteorite material anywhere lower than ~0.5% of the total mass of atmosphere, which seems ridiculously high.)

@delroth

Somewhat OT: Do you know what kind of display is used in Shinkansen (those one-line scrolling displays above the doors to the carriage lobbies)?

@timorl And I just did the same thing in reverse to a fellow from Tiefbauamt ^^*

@evacide

I wonder whether relying on actions of bystanders could solve the problem.

I remember a homemade car alarm from the 90ties that had a very amusing alerting mechanism. If the alarm came to the conclusion that the car is stolen, it would project an "I am stolen, please call the police" banner onto the boot cover of the car _only while the car was moving_ (so that the thief would not notice that themselves).

I wonder if we could make something that alerted bystanders _only_. Identifying bystanders is not trivial, but there are heuristics that could help: a phone that is seen in the vicinity for the first time during daylight hours, after a day or so has passed since the presumed time of theft probably belongs to a bystander. The harder part is what to actually tell them (both: what to expect of them and how to identify what is the object that's suspected of being stolen).

@ShadSterling @evacide

I presume because they expect that the thief would rather use that opportunity to find and disable the tracker.

@madargon I dearly hope that no one implicitly assumes that a+b@c.d is owned by the same entity that owns a+z@c.d

@rysiek Sadly, that subscribes you to a toot as opposed to a thread.

Re subscribing to a thread: There's no reason why a fedi instance couldn't create an Actor for every thread, support following that Actor, and cc that thread's first toot to that Actor's followers. That would require others to preserve cc and would require others to surface the "follow this thread" interface.

This would also create a concept of a thread, which currently isn't really a thing. I'm not sure whether it's good or bad, but certainly the current intermediate state (no one can really moderate a thread, except that the instance of a toot's author can clandestinely suppress replies to that toot with reasonable effectiveness) is worse than either "threads exist and each one has an owner/moderator" or "there are just replies and if you federate with reply author's instance you'll see it as a reply".

@evan The poll is missing the sock-pants-sock option :)

@niconiconi @vertigo

Would you mind pointing at some description (or writing one) of how that got solved/mitigated?

@filippo One reason for that is content that's illegal to distribute in the location where the instance/instance's admin is. The instance _is_ redistributing content from instances it federates with (not only to its users, but also to anyone in the Internet via context of post pages). Also, there's some amount of media caching happening.

In case the issue is content that's not text, there are other options (disabling media caching). If the issue is distributing the content to ~anyone then silencing should help. If the issue is mere possession and/or facilitating transmission, then it's harder.

But that's not the main reason people do blocks~~~

@timorl

Ah, no, I was not wrong and they actually offer that (from some stations), so this is something that is not just marketing by selling tickets together.

@timorl

Huh, I thought they also offered the "drop you luggage off a day earlier and we'll transport it ourselves" thing with this (which IMO would be an actual reason for this to be a thing). Alas, there's no mention of anything like that on that page...

I guess that this is the standard "we will both cut our margins if people buy from both of us" setup.

@greg_doucette I am really confused by the concurring opinion there, probably because the question being addressed is not "was this policy violating the 1st amendment" but something like "can the plaintiff argue that there's a 1st amendment violation by town policy". I would appreciate if someone contradicted me or explained this (the second opinion and what question was actually being addressed) in more detail.

@lauren Also, you cannot see a preview of videos for kids (you can only see a static thumbnail). I am similarly confused by the reasoning there.

@beanface42@toot.aquilenet.fr @rysiek My closest climbing gym is also mostly like that (well, you need to come when someone's in, but then there's simply a sign-in book, piggy bank, and since some time ago a card terminal inside and a Twint QR code in the milk box outside (because there's ~no mobile coverage inside)).