Technically yes, but I don’t mean technology as phones/laptops/tablets/etc. Imho, the biggest factor in social isolation is atomization due to bad urban planning. When everything and anything is only accessible by car, you lose any connection with your local neighbourhood and local stores/cafes/etc.

In environments where people walk around the neighbourhood, doing small daily shops, going to local businesses and taking mass transit to work/school/restaurants/bars, then you’re much more likely to interact with people rather than driving around in your social isolation-mobile.

Urban planning can be considered a form of technology, which is why I said technically yes.

EDIT: Oh, another big factor here is the loss of the third place. It still exists in some places (local pubs in British towns, local coffee shop in Portugal, etc), but in places without a socially normal “hangout spot” that is separated from both home and work/school, it’s much harder to meet acquaintances which may in time become friends.

Yeah, absolutely, that’s a much more readable summation than what I wrote.

As an aside, I really like the social contract theory. It’s a pretty clean philosophical summation of how the majority of people in tolerant democracies see the world and provides the foundation for it, even if they don’t think about it in formal philosophical terms. That essentially we are implicitly bound by the rules established by previous generations, those that set the rules (both cultural and legal), until such time as we form a political or cultural movement to change those rules. Then, anyone who comes after us is bound by those rules we set until and unless they in turn change them.

EDIT: I guess I should add that in the context of this thread, “be tolerant” is a cultural rule that has developed over the recent past, and thus if you aren’t tolerant there are social repercussions (and in countries with hate speech laws, even legal repercussions) as that is the current rule.

There’s also the social contract resolution to the tolerance paradox. Essentially, the tolerance paradox is that tolerating intolerance erodes tolerance. This means eventually if you allow intolerance to fester, they will seize control and you lose that tolerance.

The social contract resolution is that by being intolerant, you lose your right to be tolerated. This avoids that paradox, but superficially can look like intolerance.

I hope this didn’t end up too much like word salad.

Works for floors!

Do I grab them by the bridge bit that sits on their nose

This is the way.

Blink-blink-blink. Blink. Blink. Blink. Blink-blink-blink.

No, I don’t have something in my eyes, I swear I’m fine looks nervously at boss.

I’d say OS and driver programming is also in that category. It is the deep magic.

Living next to a park is great. I do the same, except I’ve got my phone with me connected to teams. I can get back home on my computer in under 2 minutes if I need to.

But seriously, are there really women who talk about men in those terms?

Yes. Personally, I see it as the mirror image of the “tradwife” thing where toxic men see their partner as a subservient maid. Seeing men as primarily an income source comes from a similar place imho.

LLM’s aren’t real AI

I think that’s mostly a semantics issue. When people talk about AI here on Lemmy, they generally mean AGI. LLMs are not AGIs, as far as I understand it.

There are lots of people who will never update if asked to update at their leisure. I think it’s far better for user security to have updates be forced by default, with the option to schedule them yourself.

anti-anything google

I hear that. Went through the technical reasons for the manifest V2 deprecation (if this is only to target ublock origin, why did they implement filter lists into the browser? Why does ublock origin lite work just fine?) and it got more downvotes than upvotes. Haters gonna hate I guess :))

This video does an ok job of it.

While we’re on the topic of EU initiatives, the tax the rich initiative still needs signatures. It aims to set a floor on tax rates for the very wealthy, and have member states use that new money for environment, employment and social policies.

They’ve hit the threshold for France and Germany, but still need more signatures everywhere else.

separately, it would be a travesty to say that the so-called “tribes” […] were “given to us by chance”

What I meant by that is that you don’t decide where you’re born or who your parents are. That is “by chance” from the point of view of the individual.

Humans are a tribal species. Whether we’re talking culture, ethnicity, nationality or any other method of defining who is inside or outside the group, the fact is we have an ingrained tendency to separate “us” from “them”.

Modern psychology says that the process of becoming more and more inclusive and tolerant is the process of expanding your mental map of who your “tribe” is.

This means that to truly accomplish our goal here (you and I seem to 100% agree on that goal), we need to expand people’s mental model of their tribe to encompass all people.

While I do hope that eventually we get to one humanity-sized tribe, until then humans still seem to want smaller tribes. While trying to convince people to see all humans as part of the same tribe, we can simultaneously try and improve the smaller arbitrary tribes we were given by chance.

Abandon consoles. Embrace the inevitability of the PC master race.

So, I watched that third link in its entirety. It was pretty interesting. I think the core idea is that NK isn’t some absolutely insane bizarro land, which I actually agreed with beforehand. It did not disprove the fact that NK is an authoritarian dictatorship. The only thing it did prove (which again, I knew about beforehand) is that western media likes to exaggerate the faults to hyperbolic levels. I honestly think that the average north korean would live a better life without the Kim family (or any other family regime) ruling over them. This doesn’t mean that they force people to have specific hairstyles at gunpoint or execute politicians for slouching during speeches (as the video joked about), but they still direct a large portion of the states wealth towards friends and family.

I think you should really honestly consider the fact that two wrongs don’t make a right. NK and the USA do terrible things. Instead of litigating which one is worse, maybe we should focus on how to make better alternatives, like you’ve done with this alternative to Reddit.

That specific BBC article is what I was talking about. It’s not publicly available testimony, it’s information gathering by the SK state about NK from defectors.

To all of those stories, they seem like strawmen. I’ve not heard anything that ridiculous. Just that NK is an authoritarian regime that rewards friends and family of the regime at the expense of the well being of the populace. Kinda like a red veneer over Saudi Arabia, similar system.

So why aren’t you asking why the US is allowed to participate when they commit far worse atrocities?

I didn’t even ask why NK isn’t allowed to participate. Why are you giving me an argument I didn’t make?