As it happens, exactly a day later after I said anything, a famous science commentator dropped the first bombshell on this often-fidgeted-with topic, complete with the same cited sources.

Heh, I am amused someone is referencing this thread (which I forgot about) for a book about the noosphere being a part of the fediverse and being federated (through a technology built by aliens that uses a combination of machines with airwaves and dream influencing to unify dreams, which is a part of the fediverse) and the fact the reason we might not realize we’re in each others’ dreams is because the appearances in the dreams differ in inconsequential ways in the same way multiple versions of redrawn scenes or parallel style fiction do due to being federated, with the occasional individual defederation.

No worries then, it’s algorithm-based, not religion-based (I am agnostic).

That’s a bit oddly specific, this wasn’t intended to be about that, but alright. I’m not one of them but know enough people who are to know she goes overboard with her criticisms sometimes. For example, she singles certain people out for their “treasure hunting” when it was a folk tradition practiced by many people at the time, misconstrues their dress code on more than one occasion, and paints Joseph Smith’s expression of polygamy as dirty when, if it was as dirty as people say, it would’ve been one of the crimes he was charged with by the courts. I singled her out because she’s the easiest person to get stuck seeing on the front page, so it quite literally and unavoidably feels in your face, thus it’s a bit of a meme right now to cite her.

I feel like this comment of yours is a jab against me, but Leah Remini herself, after being asked to weigh in on Mormonism, said it’s nowhere near as bad as people paint it, so I at least have the OG to help back things up.

I wasn’t wondering about that though.

It’s not as if, when a group gets too big, it’s not natural for sectarianism to develop.

That’s the argument though, they’re already being pit against each other, with people already fighting over who is worthy to say “I have autism”.

A few reasons.

1. The internet is taken for granted and this would be like a social cap. In theory, something could take its place in limited form in private settings.

2. The internet travels around the world through undersea cables (long enough to encircle the Earth 180 times) which then go into servers which then go into cables which then reach your residence, and that’s a lot of service strain we add onto by putting the internet wherever we can.

3. Knowledgeability isn’t as appreciated as it used to be, and having a hub for it would un-devalue it.

4. It would help maintain the right flow of interaction and information and combat things like misinformation.

5. So that people don’t pose a hassle to administration.

6. To bring people together.

7. Some countries want to ban it entirely, and it would serve as a good middle ground to pacify the urge to do this without eliminating the internet.

It’s no different in my opinion from proposing something such as us all living in communal housing.

But where does the communal part come in? Are people sharing their clothes?

But does the transport cost money?

The first one. Or perhaps it shouldn’t be illegal but rather discouraged in some way.

Wait, it would? My local library’s biggest demographic is disabled people.

pleainly

You prove my point. There’s a difference between ways of communicating that go against the rules of language and ways of communicating that simply, to some people, seem to overuse it. My original message had no typos.

There’s nothing stopping a sound mind that wants to understand it from understanding it. Or this sound mind could also, in theory, ask for a paraphrasing, and maybe the asker would have the courtesy to elaborate in some way.

Treating someone as having committed an offense worse than using slurs, just due to the way they explained something in the style of normal speech and language rules, is at least two levels of escalation above that and unprovoked.

Yes

Wait, it does? I was always taught it had the fertility of a three thousand kilometer savannah.

If what I say correctly abides by the rules of language, then the only issues with what I write would thus be technical.

I’m going to pull a quote out of !casualconversation@lemm.ee’s playbook and say if you insist standards for how people present themselves should be so high, a community of people exchanging questions and answers, especially ones with high concentrations of socialists, isn’t for you.

Why is everyone complaining these days that they had to run something by ChatGPT for clarification as if the very fact ChatGPT understands a question doesn’t itself imply there’s nothing linguistically wrong with how it was asked?

I found him.

You were an exchange student? I’ve always wanted to be one of those. Any horror stories when abroad, like realizing you had to know more languages, finding a host, getting stuck…?