At least it’s better than !technology@lemmy.world… I wanted to say that !technology@beehaw.org is the best by far but then I realised that they’re not federated with you guys.

Edit: There really should be a technopolitics comm somewhere. I wonder whether people would use it if they knew it existed. It would probably also require some proper moderation in these communities.

I’m not against regulation of social media such as TikTok, not because of any percieved foreign control of the narrative, but rather simply because of its harm on individuals (addiction, toxicity, dysmorphia, surveillance capitalism, to name a few things).

Fair point. Maybe they avoid endorsing specific products with which they are unaffiliated? Especially since Mozilla gets most of their funding from Google and promote it as a pinned shortcut and default search engine?

I think this is the wrong take. If we want Lemmy to be truly community-controlled, we need many small servers, as opposed to the current situation of one server controlling half the userbase. Also, which server is Facebook-controlled? Lemmy.world is in the minority by federating with Threads.

What does lemmy.world being the biggest have to do with any of this?

This is a spam account; the link leads to gore. DO NOT click it

At the same time, the power of the EU is, however indirectly, based on the votes of the people, and if enough people disagree they might just change their minds a little. I guess the best thing you could do, therefore, is to spread the word.

Yes, you’re right, we can’t do a lot. But we can write to the member of the European Parliament who is responsible (Romana Jerković), and we can vote in our national elections and the European one coming up next year, so that’s something.

If you’re not an EU citizen, not much. But if you are a cybersecurity expert, researcher or represent an NGO, you can sign the open letter at https://eidas-open-letter.org.

Well, kind of. The time dimension is a bit tricky, though – in Minkowsky space, a common way to think about spacetime, it is hyperbolic in relation to the other dimensions. In a nutshell, this means that distance is not the square root of the sum of the squares of the distances in specific dimensions, but rather of the difference. This makes it especially tricky to visualise. (I do recommend you check out this series by minutephysics, he does a great job at making it intuitive)

My analogy, therefore, doesn’t translate directly to spacetime, but it does provide a very simple 2d explanation for why straight things can act curved (even in 4d).

It is straight in reference to the distorted spacetime.

Conventionally, a straight line is defined as the shortest path between two points, but if you take a plane that is not flat, say the surface of a ball, the shortest path between two points will be curved. But from the perspective of the two-dimensional man who lives in surface, the line is straight because it moves perfectly along his world.

It was a joke – it behaves as a wave until you observe it; then it collapses into a particle.

I had to search for a bit but I finally found this !science_memes@mander.xyz post: https://mander.xyz/post/3197041

Well that’s just a theory, albeit good, and there’s a good chunk of modern science that refuses to marry it, so let’s not be too sure about it, shall we?

Edit: Wikipedia summarises it nicely:

Although general relativity is highly regarded for its elegance and accuracy it is not without limitations: the gravitational singularities inside of black holes, the ad hoc postulation of dark matter, as well as dark energy and its relation to the cosmological constant are among the current unsolved mysteries regarding gravity; all of which signal the collapse of the general theory of relativity at different scales and highlight the need for a gravitational theory that goes into the quantum realm.

Edit: Also highly recommend this read: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-gravity/

Massless light is still affected by gravity, though…

I mean, ə could be replaced wiþ y (which would be kind of similar to Welsh) if j spells ðe /j/ sound (y as a consonant), but þorn and eð have been part of ðe English alphabet before ðe Fr*nch came and are otherwise quite difficult to replace intuitively.

Still inconsistent. Better would be toht, ðow, þoht, þruw, þruwawt, þərow, təf in American English.

Not quite the same though – that poem is literally incomprehensible to any Mandarin speaker, unless we read it. In OP’s meme it’s the spelling that’s messin’ things up.

Edit: Also, all these syllables (morphemes, not words) are not quite the same – they are differentiated by the four tones of mandarin chinese. Here is a link to the poem being read – you might hear the almost musical intonation of each syllable.

I mean… the opposite of child is kind of parent.

At this level of complexity opposites lose their concrete meaning and you can kind of interpret them as you like.

First of all, this is not logic. This is just a dumb thought experiment.

And secondly, something as complex as a person will never have a true opposite, so you will be looking at the defining feature of that person. In the case of Jesus Christ, a lot of peoply would say that “son of God” is his defining feature.