I suspect that there will be issues occasionally, but I don’t think I see any very often.
As an example, I got https://archive.is/oc41v as an archive of https://www.reddit.com/r/zelda/comments/1cf6rzl/all_order_to_play_using_a_guide/ just now.
Using http://old.reddit.com/ might produce results when using https://www.reddit.com/ didn’t.
Is it more important to you to access a game guide or to bypass blocking? There is probably a game guide that you can access without using Reddit.
I don’t recall a time when I had a problem with using https://www.privacyguides.org/en/tor/#tor-browser to see a Reddit page
This might also express that someone doesn’t consider themselves to be “pillarized”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillarisation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPk-efest5M&t=2276s
I think they aren’t quite the same: “buy 1 get 1 free” means that you only get a discount if you remove at least 2 units of inventory from the store. If I wanted to encourage people to clear out shelves in order to make space for new inventory (like an entirely new product or the same product but with more distant expiration dates), I might be inclined to use “buy 1 get 1 free” (or something like “buy 3 get 1 free”) rather than just reducing the base price: if someone only gets the discount if they help me clear the shelves it might make our incentives more aligned. A “buy 1 get 1 free” deal might also make it easier to reinterpret statistics: being able to say “we sold 100 units at a price of $2 for each unit (but there was a buy 1 get 1 free deal)” might be more useful than being able to say “we sold 100 units at a price of $1 for each unit”. Also, information about who took advantage of the deal and who didn’t might be interesting (based on what was bought at the same time or tracked with a “loyalty program”), but a constant discount doesn’t make that information available since it applies to everyone equally.
I expect that they mean to express that they were not engaged with any political system in the past and don’t expect to engage with any party that already exists. It might also express that they will disengage from politics when they determine that they can stop addressing this particular issue (whether that is because the issue was solved or not). Perhaps it helps to be “not tainted by government or mainstream parties’ scandals” (or vice versa).
Consider your audience. “You are part of the problem” (meaning “I am the enemy of the person reading these words”) is probably not what you wanted to communicate. “Collective Shout is part of the problem” (meaning “The person reading these words should help to neutralize Collective Shout”) probably is. Addressing someone that you don’t want to engage in “diplomacy” with is probably a bad idea. You might want to use words such that you address people who you want to cooperate with.
Alternatively, one could go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melinda_Tankard_Reist#Video_games
It seems that what was available at https://dubvee.org/post/3788765 is available at https://kbin.earth/m/announcements@dubvee.org/t/1605451/Shutting-Down-on-July-31-This-fediverse-experiment-was-a still.
I don’t think that anyone should be “humiliated”. If someone expresses an idea, it’s likely that they are making use of that idea in their life (or that a reader might start using that idea in their life), so if you think their idea is harmful, it’s surely better to provide an alternative idea rather than only question their dignity. Expressing that someone should “come back when they are better educated” makes me think that you want people to stop making comments as frequently and to read comments more often than they did before. I think that reading more comments can be helpful, but suggesting that someone should avoid commenting deprives us of an opportunity to understand that person better, and if we want to cooperate with someone, it would be better to have a better understanding of them (and if we don’t cooperate with someone, we will probably have to compete with them: “When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will”). The only reason I know of to stop engaging with someone is if they’re acting in bad faith: if someone is trying to distract you by trying to get you to make uninteresting comments instead of allowing your attention to be focused on something more productive, it’d be a help to other people to make that clear. In essence, this is “trolling”. Something like Bluesky lists might be useful in that situation. I don’t see how targeting someone to “dump on” is helpful: that seems like a distraction from more productive activities, which is probably exactly what a “troll” wants. I suspect that the best “consequence” in response to harm is to start ignoring someone and to make it easier for other people to ignore that person.
I haven’t had any notably negative experiences while using the Fediverse. Even in cases when someone makes an “aggressive” reply to a comment of mine, if I ask a follow-up question, most people respond genuinely, so I often end up having a productive and enjoyable conversation. The situation is probably different when someone is really mad at you: if someone makes dozens of accounts to spam messages and downvotes, that would be really annoying and would make it more difficult to use the Fediverse productively, and I’ve seen reports of that happening to several people (and that might be what happened to the maintainer of Tesseract). Handling that situation would probably be harder to deal with than while using a centralized service since someone could use various servers to target one person, so there might not be one person who can handle all the spam. Reddit probably has a system to automatically block ingenuine downvotes and spam messages (especially if a particular person is receiving a lot of them), but I’m not sure that the Fediverse has an automatic system to achieve the same results, so it might be down to an administrator or a group of administrators to manually detect disruptive accounts/users. In consideration of how a typical person would view typical Fediverse comments, they would probably be put off by how they are probably more political and violent in nature when compared to those from other services. I’ve seen several comments that quite explicitly expressed “rich people should be killed”, and I’ve seen that at least one was removed by a moderator/administrator. Such comments surely do more harm than good: most people surely prefer to talk to people who aren’t calling for violence and are generally civil. To help with this, it’s probably good to report comments that are outright violent or that would be of interest to an administrator and to downvote “aggressive” comments so that people are more likely to be able to peruse comments without having a bad experience. In general, it’s surely a good thing to provide comments that engage with a post/comment in good faith so that people have something/someone that they can enjoy interacting with, but I don’t often have a thought that is coherent enough to be worth sharing, so I don’t expect this to happen very often.
I believe that it’s unlikely that many people outside of Afghanistan will ever meet an Afghan that isn’t a Muslim.
Almost the entire Afghan population is Muslim, with less than 1% being non-Muslim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Afghanistan#Religion
I think it’s possible that someone could have “died” but still be alive today (after being revived). Someone could truthfully say, “He died, but he’s not dead”. “Briton Audrey Schoeman revived after six-hour cardiac arrest”
For real-time communication, the most suitable solutions are probably documented around https://www.privacyguides.org/en/real-time-communication/ (note that email is not recommended for person-to-person conversations).
When do you think you should allow a child to have an email address? A Fediverse account is basically an email account, except that the primary inbox is shared with a lot of people rather than only one person (and the same goes for any social media account). If you wouldn’t allow someone to use an email address, you probably shouldn’t allow them to use a Fediverse account either.
At least one person who seems interested in the health of children expressed that “delaying children’s access to smartphones until high school and social media platforms until 16” is a good idea. https://www.anxiousgeneration.com/ https://jonathanhaidt.com/social-media/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0MXgA2sSn8
My opinions are likely to be in accord with information found at https://www.privacyguides.org/en/desktop/ and https://www.privacyguides.org/en/android/distributions/
As an alternative to making decisions without direct assistance, you might benefit from contracting with another person to make decisions based on requirements you describe (essentially getting a chief information officer (CIO) for yourself). The main reason I’m suggesting this is that having more people involved will make it more likely that someone will know about established best practices relevant to your situation or that someone will have experience with a problem that is similar to the one you’re dealing with. Additional reasons I could provide for this would be similar to the reasons people give to discourage someone from handling court appearances without a lawyer or doing surgery on themselves. You might be able to use https://ryf.fsf.org/categories/laptops to find information about how to contact people about your computing needs. Alternatively, you could visit a store (for example, one operated by Walmart).
I was thinking about this while I was composing my post. I was thinking that I could cite literally every word with a “wiktionary.org” link, but there’s probably a bootstrapping problem where if you don’t already understand a reasonable amount about “wiktionary.org”, you can’t make use of my citations. Also, if the reader normally uses the “dictionary.com” definitions of words, and a definition conflicts with the “wiktionary.org” usage, that could cause problems.
Some states have an official group of people who determine what the “correct” way to speak is. I know that France has or had something like that. That could be useful for legal proceedings so that people who use language inconsistently don’t stay free much more often than people who do.
I think that we just have to assume that everyone who’s not in prison has some way to communicate with the majority of the people they meet, regardless of whether there is a group of people making prescriptive statements about definitions and/or grammar. That means that dictionaries (and any other detailed documentation like citations) don’t need to be used for day-to-day communication.
Note that dictionaries and things like that will probably always be useful for “technical” interactions, like using a legal court, or making engineering plans, or directing time-sensitive operations (like how a pilot should know that someone saying “mayday mayday mayday” means that an emergency is being declared).
Things started earlier than that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Dnp7lOObjU&t=3119s&list=PLG1NADbefbENzGtVrh_bh-W6sfSWfopqS
So I’m English. I’m poor, rich, middle; who cares? It doesn’t matter. I get on a ship. I come to Virginia. If I’m free, they will deed me 40 acres of land (40 acres of land they don’t own). There’s a Native American family that owns it. I now have the deed to 40 acres of land that somebody else is using, that is farming. Because, right, we have this double think 1984 thing in our head: the Native Americans didn’t know how to farm, Europeans did; the pilgrims arrive, they don’t know how to farm, so Squanto finds them starving to death; he goes up to them he’s like “dude, what’s happening, why aren’t you growing food” and they’re like “we don’t know how” so Squanto shows them how to do Agriculture, and you may have been in a play about this, and he’s, like, planting fish in the ground to fix the nitrogen into the soil, and at the same time you hold these two contradictory beliefs: first that the Native Americans couldn’t Farm because they’re too dumb, and then second that the Native Americans taught the pilgrims how to farm, and it doesn’t occur to you that they can’t both be true! Anyway, turns out Squanto really did teach the dumb pilgrims how to farm because they were too stupid to grow their own food and were starving to death! So I walk out into Virginia; I got my blunderbuss. I’m walking out, and I see the family of Native Americans farming that land that’s mine, and I take a shot at them. They hear the bang, they run, they fight; doesn’t matter. The land will be mine; I will take it from them. There’s a crop already in the field, which is great cuz then come harvest time I’m already set, and then I just continue to farm the land. Is that amazing? All I need to do is get across the Atlantic; the rest is free (well, except for the ammo). In other words, at some level, the colonial settler project that the British unleash in what will become the United States of America was a wealth transfer scheme. There is no greater asset on the planet than real estate, right? Not Bitcoin, not stamps, not coins, not gold—it’s land! Land you can grow food, land you can build a house, land you can build a factory, land you can find gold, land you can find coal, you can find oil. Land, land, land, land! So to go from having none to suddenly having some with really nothing put into it other than you just happen to be English, and you had to commit a little act of violence, that’s a remarkable, like, leap! That’s a remarkable jump. But then, we added a layer to it. Tobacco is labor intensive. In other words, yeah, I can grow tobacco as a single person not farming, but I’m putting in a lot of hours. Now it turns out tobacco, at the time at least (I don’t know if it’s still true), the tobacco seed was worth more than its weight in gold, so this is going to make me a lot of money, but if I’m a single farmer out there doing this, it’s not really going to make me a lot of money fast. It’s better than growing yams, it’s better than growing wheat, it’s better than raising chickens for sure, but it’s hard. As soon as I have enough money, what I’ll do is I’ll put in for a mail-order bride; once she comes over, she becomes part of my labor team. Now I’m producing even more tobacco, and then she’ll incubate my next generation of labor; by the time it’s 8 or 10 years old, I’ll probably be able to get some work out of my children, and then once I have enough money, I’ll buy a mule or ox or a horse or something, and then once I have enough money, I’ll bring over an indentured servant, three, five year, seven-year contract. I have a conflict of interest with my indentured servant. In three, five, or seven years they’re going to get their freedom; I have to give them a gift as I let them go. They have every incentive not to work hard for the time they’re working for me, but I want to squeeze every ounce of labor out of them, so it’s kind of a violent event, and eventually they just start to run away (becomes a nuisance), but once we’ve developed the level of sophistication that we can support this, we start bringing over slaves (which is almost right away; it did not take long before we’re bringing over slaves).
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/ps5/300963-god-of-war-ragnarok/faqs/81756/chapter-12-reunion These locations appear to be forums for games that are not older than 15 years old: https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/300963-god-of-war-ragnarok https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards