I haven’t, actually, since I normally use an adblocker (and also don’t use that tracker). Looks like they’re all VPN advertisements right now, which is at least a somewhat non-mainstream ad segment.

Accounts are already mostly portable (you can easily export all your settings and import into your new account), you just don’t retain posting history.

To retain that… I guess there could be a separate fediverse service that does nothing but allow registering accounts that let you prove that other fediverse accounts all belong to the same person, and then a PR can be made to Lemmy and the other platforms to honor these links when showing posting history. It’d be quite a messy system.

The answer is obvious: we must forever be completely advertiser-unfriendly and absolutely unmarketable. With every piece of porn, every post on digital piracy, every swearword, we do our part to protect the fediverse’s independence.

The thing I said I did? Yes; here’s the processed image:

If you mean the math in the post, I can’t read it in this picture but it’s probably just some boring body-of-rotation-related integrals, so basically the same thing as I did but breaking apart the vase’s visible shape into analytically simple parts, whereas I got the shape from the image directly.

This roughly checks out. I’m getting 66%, based on the methodology of cutting out the jug’s shape from the picture and numerically integrating the filled and empty volume (e.g. if a row is d pixels wide, it contributes d^2 to the volume, either filled or empty depending on whether it’s above or below the water level).

…do you truly think it’s better for billionaires not to donate to charity than to do so? Because I’m sorry, but whatever complicated moral justification you have for berating them for it, these donations still have a large positive impact on the world.

Quite possibly the enemies have a better idea of the players’ hitpoint total than the DM, since they can, like, see how the player characters look, and probably have been tracking the battle much more closely than the DM has.

Hmm, interesting. Somewhat compelling, but:

• it’s a rather small (n=38) Chinese pilot study
• the effect on the sleep latency is sizable (a latency decrease from 31±14 to 18±12 minutes, effect size of 0.85), but there’s no effect on actual sleep duration.
• the sleep measurements were subjective (sleep diaries, not actigraphy)

I’m also a bit concerned why it’s the only study with this methodology in this later meta-analysis - all of the other “behavioral intervention” studies in it experiment with stuff like “extended time-in-bed”. In other words, there seems to not have been any followup or replication of this study.

It kills parasitic infections caused by worms. Cancer is not a parasitic infection caused by a worm. It’s like asking if a mouse trap can fix climate change. No, because they are in no way related.

That’s not a convincing argument. It suffices to say that ivermectin was considered as a candidate for a cancer drug as early as 2018, with a proposed mechanism of action and everything. It’s not as simple as “cancer is not a parasitic infection”, because pharmacology is never this simple. That paper also mentions positive study results both in vitro and in vivo. There is also a lot of later research (search ivermectin cancer on google scholar), but it’s potentially biased by the horrifying memetic war that happened in America during the covid pandemic.

My conclusion from ten minutes of googling is that quite possibly it’s a real weak anti-cancer drug much like the already-known ones. It’s hard to be sure of those things - we’re in an age where there’s enough research and publication bias and politics that you can’t trust individual studies¹. And you can’t fully trust meta-analyses either, but I can’t even find a meta-analysis of ivermectin as used for cancer, so.

(It’s pretty safe to say that it’s not an amazing cancer drug much better than all existing ones (like some people seem to think) - both on priors, and because if that was the case it’d be extremely obvious from all of the studies already made.)

¹ I don’t mean fraud, I mean that if a hundred teams over the globe try a study of something that doesn’t work, five of them will find p<0.05 results by pure chance and quite possibly only those teams will publish it - so until several good replications come along, it’ll look like there’s a real and well-supported effect. And there can be much subtler problems than this - see, say, how well the studies of psychic powers go.

Yet, people suffering from it can lead happy and fulfilling lives.

Sure, it’s possible for a person with a severe disability to grow up happy. But when one is making a decision in real life (like having a child), one should consider an average case, not a exceptional one. And the average case for an example like Down’s Syndrome is pretty bad. It is a bit unclear how to quantify the suffering in this particular disease’s case because the main harm to the child is lifelong mental impairment and assorted physical disabilities - but it is at least going to inflict suffering on the child’s family, since caring for a child with a severe disability for their entire life isn’t exactly fun.

It is a slippery slope that, if not navigated carefully, has historically leaded to atrocities.

I don’t see the relation. You’ll notice that I’m not proposing killing off disabled people for the “improvement of society” or whatever it was that nazis called it. I am not doing this because nonconsensually killing a person is a harm to them. But deciding not to have a child isn’t the same thing as murdering a person - it’s not harming anyone who exists, and hence may well be morally better than having a child.

(Oh, I suppose you might mean that I’m arguing that there are circumstances in which it’s morally bad for a person to have a child, which is similar to nazi eugenics in that I’m deciding whether or not people should have children? In that case, my answer is that the difference is that I’m a person, not an authoritarian government, and I don’t have power (nor, indeed, the desire) to force people to obey my personal moral judgements.)

Developers usually make $50-300/hour.

That seems like an overestimate even for US. More importantly, I don’t think most open source developers earn this much money (otherwise they wouldn’t ask for tiny donations), and hence it’s not the relevant figure. If I’m wrong about this, please do tell me - I very much would like to know if the hours I occasionally spend on open-source contributions can instead earn me hundreds of dollars. ;)

Depends - do you have crypto?

I see. No, I don’t think I have any specific questions at this point.

carries the implication that the world would be happier were you to just kill off the huge segment of the population who end up on the negative side.

Not necessarily. Someone dying isn’t the same as someone not existing at all.* It does imply that the world would be better off if it stopped existing, and under some assumptions implies it’d be moral to, say, instantly end all of humanity. I’m not sure that these conclusions are necessarily “contrary to our instincts”.

*one reason why this has to be true, is that if we didn’t distinguish between those, then if an average life had positive value, it’d be immoral not to have as many children as possible, until the marginal value of an extra life fell to zero once again (kind of like how Malthus thought societies worked, except as a supposedly moral thing to do). That conclusion is something I do consider very contrary to my instincts.

I do tend towards a variant of utilitarianism myself as it has a useful ability to weigh options that are both bad or both good, but for the reason above I tend to define “zero” as a complete lack of happiness/maximum of suffering, and being unhappy as having low happiness rather than negative (making a negative value impossible), though that carries it’s own implications that I know not everyone would agree with.

I too am an utilitarianist, sure. I’m not sure I can possibly buy “maximum suffering and no happiness” being the zero point. I very strongly feel that there are plenty of lives that would be way worse than dying (and than never having existed, too). It’s a coherent position I think, just a very alien one to me.

That’s literally true, but the simple counterargument is that the happiness/suffering conversion coefficient is a matter of one’s values and not particularly up for debate - so there’s nothing incoherent about, say, the position that your child living a happy fullfilling life for a thousand years but stubbing their toe once is enough suffering to make their life net negative.

This is a great comment. I’ll add that anyone thinking about disability ethics should read Two Arms and a Head, lest they start taking too seriously the idea that disabilities have no effect on quality of life.

I agree that there’s a lot of space between “considered disabled” and “horrible life”, but OP said “suffer their whole life” which I associated with the latter.

Is there some feature comparison of lemmy vs mbin vs other reddit-like platforms? There was some major reason why I didn’t like kbin, but I forgot why.

I don’t think the “scientists” circle is there in reality.

A world in which politicians actually needed to justify their actions by scientific research would be way better than this one. Yes, I know this is unreliable and biasable in a million ways, it’d still be better - it’s harder to make stuff up via a few intermediaries than to just make stuff up directly. Modern politicians are just linked directly to the twitter circle.