There can be vast differences in reading comprehension and contextual tone recognition.
As an easy example think of the many degrees of neurodivergency.
Secondly, British sarcasm and indeed a lot of British communication in general comes from the intention to be deliberately vague, so as to bake plausible deniability in to the responses given.
It can be inferred, but it's not a guarantee.
That being said this guy seems to just be a prick trying to walk back something that blew up in his face.
You mean to say that people on this site are claiming that individuals with publicly stated agendas and goals might possibly use the fiscal and/or reputational benefits of the organisations they control to aid in the furthering of whatever goals/agendas they may have?
Point me in their direction, i shall have words...big ones...like wherewithal ...or extrapolation....prestidigitation...etc.
Clearly these people are buttering their toast with a teaspoon, seems like an incredible leap to me and i bet they couldn't even provide a single example of this happening in the modern day.....illogical plebeians.
Edit : more salt that I'd expect for zero actual counterpoints
There are many such projects that have done similar things that aren't getting the attention this one has.
The reason this one it getting the attention it is, is because of the replies and behaviour of the dev.
All of what you said is reasonable at a glance, still it's not relevant to my argument.
Reasons exist.
Whether or not the reasons are good is irrelevant to my original argument.
If you're asking me whether or not i think the reasons are good, my answer is i don't know and I’m not invested enough in the answer to go looking.
What i will do is put down my uneducated answers to your response.
You could get 40% more of the same data by increasing output on the ISS with no increased risk of death.
Increasing output of existing members is unlikely to be equivalent to data from entirely new test subjects.
40% more data on existing subjects isn't the same as 40% additional data from new subjects.
For a more equal comparison you'd need to ship new people to the ISS and then your argument would only be true if there was zero risk of death in getting new people to the ISS.
The difference in environment between the ISS and the moon is worthless, instead of zero gravity they’re just in low gravity, which we can achieve without even going to the ISS, low orbit would do the trick with even lower risk.
That's subjective but you could be right, i'd possibly argue that the combination of factors in space in addition to the low gravity would be different than a terrestrial equivalent, so a low gravity experiment in the ISS might be a better comparison.
I don't know enough to be certain about any of that though.
This is a publicity stunt to compensate for the US looking like a fucking joke, extra risk for no extra benefit beyond showing off.
Possibly, i'd guess likely, but again i don't know enough to have a reasonable opinion on this.
genuine question.
I was of the impression that one of the major selling points of de-federated services such as this was to not have to engage in circumvention to get around policies and rules that you don't agree with.
If you don't agree with the administration of an instance then don't use that instance (or start your own and de-federate that instance i suppose).
Dialogue about the policies and subjective opinion makes sense, if that's how you want to engage, but the somewhat decentralised nature of the fediverse make someone power tripping as an admin on an instance is easy enough to avoid by just not engaging.
More succinctly , why would you want to expend effort to be part of an instance that foundationally doesn't align with your values.
To put it another way, a mod doing their utmost to create an echo chamber of their liking (no matter how distasteful that liking might be) is allowable within the bounds of how this was all designed, the system working as intended.
Whereas creating multiple accounts to avoid bans, while technically possible, seems kind of outside of the intended process.
I could be very wrong about how all this works however, as my grasp of the intricacies is somewhat shallow.
If people would realize that they try to leave out the terms autism and autistic for a wrong reason (and maybe they don’t) that would be a success
That's phrased in such a way that it seems you think that the only reason to use "on the spectrum" is to purposely leave out the word autism.
If that's what you mean then i disagree, It's only my own anecdotal experience, but it's still at least one instance where what you are possibly suggesting is not true.
Coming from a "my interpretation is the only interpretation" viewpoint is an easy way to get confusing input from the world, at least in my personal experience.
It’s not about choosing whether something is offensive to me or not, but whether it is, be it intended or not.
I also disagree with this, offense is inherently subjective, I'd put good money on me not being the only person who thinks that.
I will however concede that "choose" was a bad choice of word on my part, as it's not always as simple as "choosing".
I am aware that people don’t usually use it to purposefully be offensive, and in that sense I can understand it - but that doesn’t change that (depending on the unconscious reason) it is offensive anyway.
See my answer above about subjective opinion vs objective fact.
But it being offensive to you, regardless of intent, i can understand, which is what i was trying to address with :
You can choose to find the phrase itself offensive and let people know of your opinion, but you should probably manage your expectations around how other people are using it so you can get an accurate reading on social intent.
I phrased that poorly, i think it would be better phrased as :
If you find the phrase itself offensive regardless of intent, you can let people know of your opinion, but you should probably at least try to understand the intent behind it so you can more accurately assess the social context and act accordingly.
for example, if you know they don't intend to be offensive and you react with hostility, that's a valid choice, but it does come with consequences, knowing about the potential consequences beforehand means you can better prepare yourself.
It’s more the latter. I don’t argue that race disparity exists. I’m only arguing that Tyreek did not do any kind of favor to himself in how he handled the situation.
Agreed, but "didn't do the most optimal thing in a given situation" isn't the same as "deserved to be dragged out of his car"
Especially in a situation where it is known to be significantly more dangerous, regardless of behaviour, for someone of a more melanin-rich persuasion.
This confusion is easily resolved though, let's clarify with a couple questions.
Do you think anyone (regardless of race) should have received that level of response in that situation ?
Do you think anyone (regardless of race) would have received that level of response in that situation ?
I’m sorry he got pulled from his car and cuffed, but my reaction to the video was that he had this coming.
I'd personally view that as two opposing viewpoints, either you think he had it coming or you're sorry it happened.
Blatantly disobeying an officer’s requests and in a way that can lead the officer to feel unsure over his/her safety and perceived control of the situation is going to end poorly.
And this is the crux of the issue, officers feeling unsafe and their level of perceived control is known to have a direct correlation to how reflective your skin is.
That doesn't even account for the officers with a blatant racial bias.
So you can argue that point, but the threshold for where actions end up in poor outcomes is intrinsically linked to race, any argument you make is going need to account for that or it's going to be perceived as missing a large chunk of the context.
Which is what is happening here.
This could easily happen to a white person.
That's subjective but again, let's clarify :
In these exact same circumstances, you'd expect a white person to be treated in the exact same way ?
The way that sentence is structured implies otherwise, but that could be a misinterpretation on my part, I suppose.
The only "legal" thing you can do
If you don't know any examples, how will specificity help ?