Ok, I'll engage you on this one, your position at least seems internally consistent.

Let's play out this example - your 2 year old niece is sick, and so are you. You recently found out that she even exists - you didn't know you had a sister until CPS told you she's your responsibility.

An action that risks your life could possibly save her... Let's say a liver transplant. It has to be you, you're her only living family member. And because of that, you'll also be responsible for her - you can put her up for adoption when this is all over, but you're still on the hook for the medical bills whether this works or not.

She's guaranteed to die if you don't give her the transplant, and you would almost certainly recover quickly on your own.

If you go through with the transplant, she has a slim chance to live, and an even slimmer one to have a decent quality of life.

But in your current state, the transplant is very risky - at best you'll see a lengthy and expensive recovery, after missing months of work you'll be tens of thousands of dollars in debt. Complications could see you paralyzed or in lifelong pain, and it's very possible both of you die on the table - maybe even likely.

The doctors are telling you it's a terrible idea to go through with this, that the risk is unacceptable and it would be a mercy to just let her pass, but they're obligated to go through with it if you insist.

Now, no one is stopping you from going through with it - if you want to put your life on the line for another, that's your decision to make. You're her guardian now, so it's your decision if she should have to go through the pain for the chance at life, no matter how small.

That's all well and good - I've seen enough to know that death is often a mercy, but if you believe otherwise there's not much to say

Now, here's my question - should the government be able to force you to attempt the transplant?

Some of these details might seem weird, but I was trying to stick the metaphor as close as possible to a very real scenario with a dangerous pregnancy. The only difference is - the doctor is performing an action here, but withholding one with the pregnancy.

You're not though - pregnancy is not a lack of action. It's an enormous commitment, especially when it's atypical. It can even be a practically guaranteed death sentence - if the fetus implants in the fallopian tubes, it's already not viable - at best you're waiting for the fetus to grow big enough to rupture them, and hoping the bleed that causes doesn't do too much damage before you can get help.

Not to mention if a fetus dies in the womb after it gets to a certain size, it rots and leads to sepsis - unclear laws and harsh punishments have already led to situations where doctors refused care for both of these life threatening cases, and in both these cases the odds aren't slim, they're none. In the second the fetus was already gone... Sometimes when they induce labor the fetus isn't even in one piece... It's pretty grisly

I don't agree with your belief that a potential life is the same as a life, but let's set that aside - I can respect that as a belief

So... My root question to you is - Should you be able to force someone to risk their own for someone else?

If so, how sure do you have to be that the other person will die no matter what you do before you're released from the compulsion to put your own health on the line?

There's always at least some risk of pregnancy turning fatal for the mother. How much danger do you have to be in for the math to check out?

And also, to what point should politicians with little understanding of medicine be able to deny you care?

That ship has sailed... So many sites don't actually change pages, they just load different data - it's way faster and looks better

Problem is, the back button takes you off the site no matter where you are, so now you can change the URL and change the history through code to have the best of both worlds

Then, there's the people who do it badly, and there's the people who think "hey, if you need pro StarCraft level clicking speed to back out of my site, maybe for some reason that will make them decide to stay"

Those things don't sound mutually exclusive

Frankly, I think this is the only reasonable stance to take with Facebook.

They do a lot of good things. They do a lot of bad things. The entity itself has zero understanding of the difference

Take the good - Facebook has invested in the maturation of a lot of technologies...as the only clear victor in social media, they very literally have more money than they know what to do with, and they threw some of that at FOSS

Leave the bad... Or more accurately, do everything you can - not only to block their data collection and manipulation of you, but also of your friends and family. Ad blockers, local cdn, and Firefox if they'll go for it

And most importantly, keep them far from the operations of anything you hold dear. The fediverse should make this list - this is something important. It's social media without an agenda - that's both rare and pretty damn important for all of us

They can't stop. There's a lot of good people at Facebook, but they can't stop - that's just what a corporation is. I'll happily break down why from first principles, but the takeaway is this - every last employee of Facebook could be the most moral, competent group out there and it'd still act like an amoral cancer on society

It's not a matter of good or evil, they will take every path that promises ROI on a time frame inversely proportional to their size, and they're freaking huge...

As a late millennial and a programmer, I've got you.

So when you request a web page, before anything else, the server gives you a 3 digit status code.

100s means you asked for metadata

200s mean it went ok

300s means you need to go somewhere else (like for login, or because we moved things around)

400s mean you messed up

500s mean I messed up

So this is in the 400s. Each specific code means something - you've probably seen 404, which means you asked for a page that isn't there. And maybe 405, which means you're not allowed to see this

418 means you asked for coffee, but I'm a teapot

I can't speak for everyone, but when I say lol I usually am trying to soften a self disparaging statement or expressing the absurdity of the situation... Or just lighten the tone because I feel like my message is too serious and I'm coming off like an asshole

I share your priorities, but I don't think you understand the depth and breath of how they can ruin this for us... The only guarantee is that, at some point (maybe tomorrow, maybe in 5 years), they'll ask "how can we extract value from this investment?". That's what a corporation is, it can't help it anymore than fire can choose how hot to burn

But even before then, we have misaligned goals. At best, their priority is to generate an endless stream of advertiser friendly content, extract information about users, and grow endlessly. At worst, they want to use us to help kill Twitter while ensuring federation of individuals does not become a viable model for social media

There's also a way to add matrix usernames to Lemmy accounts, so it's possible to make an app that ties the two together. Is that a feature people would care about?

I'm actually working on this haha.

It's definitely a v2 feature, but it's in the works

That's certainly what the companies believe, is it actually true though? Musk said everyone but the bots came crawling back... Without showing numbers

I think tech CEOs badly want to believe this is true, because it would be an easy solution to all their problems. And with everyone doing something similar, there's no competitor for them to jump to

I think they're about to realize no one has to go to them, entry were just the convenient choice. Once they're no longer convenient, people will turn elsewhere

That's certainly what the companies believe, is it actually true though? Musk said everyone but the bots came crawling back... Without showing numbers

I think tech CEOs badly want to believe this is true, because it would be an easy solution to all their problems. And with everyone doing something similar, there's no competitor for them to jump to

I think they're about to realize no one has to go to them, entry were just the convenient choice. Once they're no longer convenient, people will turn elsewhere

What in an account? It's not the name or karma, because we have display names and no karma (I think it should be per community, but discussions on if we even want it are ongoing, maybe someone will come up with a really clever idea)

If it's your subs, saved posts/settings, and even getting notifications for responses to your posts/comments I'm building all that into an app. The only thing you obviously couldn't do is edit - but an account migration method in the federation spec is in the works

But I love decentralization, I think it's the answer to everything, and it needs to go further.

All important data should live on your device and be updated, and can be applied to a different account (even on a different server)

You should be able to talk to multiple servers at the same time. This one has me stuck in refactoring... But I'm pretty sure I've got it down, I just need sleep.

You should be able to do not just filtering, but sorting and discovery at the device level - I've got custom filters working, someone asked for a keyword filter, and I thought "that sounds like a bad idea, let's try it out". You can also go server by server and do searches, then if you like something, you hit subscribe and it'll tell your server to start pulling it in

I've also got plans to use voting to look at what communities and users you like most, and show you what they like. All without the data leaving your phone.

Centralization makes everything way easier, so it's a constant temptation. But we'll get more and more decentralized as time goes on.. I'll drag the fediverse in that direction kicking and screaming myself if I have to... This is too important to just let it become just

Luckily, a lot of the devs building for Lemmy feel that way - at every layer, we're asking what we can do to take it further