I have no experience nor done any research into this topic but I would think that a gun to the temple is easier to mess up resulting in either a slow death or a non-lethal shot with a life altering disability or disfigurment.

Gun in the mouth is more guaranteed a kill shot. Under the chin would probably be even more guaranteed. Just be sure to aim up and not back.

Well, they wrote some letters. There’s nothing more the nations law makers can do to protect citizens from corporate greed and price gouging. /s

WLFI has a current value of $0.0000000000034 USD.

That’s about 3 billion WLFI for 1 penny. What a deal!

Didn’t Google try this a decade ago with Google Glass, but recieved such a negative response over privacy concerns that it abandoned the project.

Am I remembering this wrong? Have people’s views on privacy changed to the point where this is acceptable? Does Meta not have the features that Google did which prompted to backlash?

Or if they get the wrong address.

Or if they don’t like your skin color.

Or if they don’t like your tone.

Or if they just generally feel like it while their body cams are “malfunctioning”.

Basically, if you want to kill people with impunity, become a police officer in the US.

Several hours? Those people are parked and charging their car while they are doing something else. It takes about 15 minutes to get 200 miles of range at a Tesla charging station. People sitting in their cars, waiting will be there for far shorter periods of time.

A vast majority of charging also takes place at the drivers destination (such as the drivers home), saving on the time it takes to go to a gas station to refuel (not to mention the time saved from not needing oil changes, smog checks, etc).

As for what to do while waiting, I’ll either use the time to grab snack, go to the bathroom, or watch something on on of the streaming services available from the console.

Yes, but they would be separate accounts (comments, subscribed y communities, messages, etc). I have an account on lemm.ee and lemmy.world which I actively use. It can get a bit annoying making sure that I stay subscribed to the same communities on both, but it’s also nice to get different feeds.

Another option would be to stand up your own closed instance, so your account is the only one. That way storage and bandwidth should be minimal enough that you can host at home and also have full control over settings on your instance.

Not lost, but inactive / isolated. As I understand it, when a user on insurance A subscribes to a community, votes, or comments on a community on instance B, that content is copied to insurance A and the two instances will sync their changes together. If instance B shuts down or the two instances defederate, then the content on instance A stays intact, but it no longer syncs with the source of truth.

Is each instance like another person with a server?

Yeah. I would assume that most, if not all, open instances are going through a 3rd party hosting service, but nothing stopping them from being hosted on hardware in somebodies home.

Could that person just shut it down whenever they wanted to?

Yup. Anytime and for any reason. It might cause a moment of disruption, but the beauty of federation is that you can always setup an account on a new instance or create your own.

Are there any companies that have invested in hosting Lemmy/ other fediverse servers?

Yes. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Facebook federating their Threads services. I’m sure that there are others.

What do you think I don’t care about? You haven’t answered my question about what topic you are trying to discuss. Cause it doesn’t sound like you are discussing corporations, like TikTok, being dishonest and deceptive to their customers.

Out of curiosity, what is the topic that you are discussing?

I’m discussing TikTok making grandiose, inaccurate and unfounded statements in an attempt to manipulate their users. And I’m attempting to shed light on that attempt.

This will damage millions of businesses

I don’t think that shifting conditions and fluctuations in a market place are damage, I think that it is just business.

destroy the livelihoods of countless creators across the country

I believe that any creators making a livelihood from social media are not doing it solely from TikTok, they are (or at least should be) diversified across multiple platforms for stability and increased earning potential.

deny artists an audience,”

I’m not even sure what this is supposed to even mean. TikTok is a platform, not an audience. The audience is still there. The artists are still there. A vast multitude of options that are not TikTok exist for connecting those 2 groups. Nothing is being denied.

Basically, as it was before TikTok, so shall it be after TikTok.

Really this is just a big handout to Meta and Google with nothing beyond that of merit

That may be, but TikTok did not argue against the consolidation of social media platforms. That would be a different discussion.

“This will damage millions of businesses, destroy the livelihoods of countless creators across the country, and deny artists an audience,”

That sounds like an overestimation of their importance.

My understanding is that TikTok did not introduce anything new nor does it offer anything truly unique. They did a major marketing push about 6 years ago to grab market share of an existing and crowded arena, which they have continued to grow. If they go away, the others actors in this space are already poised to fill any “void”, without hesitation, until the next social media trend emerges.

Somebody please correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t the United States invade Iraq despite the objections of the UN Security Council? That happened, right? Without reprocutions?

If that’s the case, I’m wondering who cares about the UN objecting to laws a country passes, within their own borders, that are not human rights violations. What are they going to do? Write a stern letter?

There are studies that show introvertion is not a “preference”, but rather the result of increased blood flow to certain parts of the brain. Ref: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9989562/

There are other studies showing a “high reactive” or “low reactive” response to unfamiliar events and stimuli in infants and it’s correlation to behavioral inhibitions as toddlers. While it requires some extrapolation, this suggests that introvertion may be a a condition of “nature” rather than “nurture”. Ref: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4283938/

Let me know if you are interested and I can send you additional peer reviewed studies and papers on the topic. Personality and human behavior is a fascinating topic.

Yes, I did read those articles. Allow me to highlight some of the points from those articles which bolster my argument that the avoiding our limiting of social interactions of introverts is rooted in finding those interactions to be exhausting and mentally draining.

they enjoy one-on-one engagement in calm environments, which is more suited to the make-up of their nervous system. Evidence suggests that, unlike with extroverts, the brains of introverts do not react strongly to viewing novel human faces; in such situations they produce less dopamine, a neurotransmitter associated with reward.

Introverts gain energy from reflection and lose energy in social gatherings.

Highly stimulating situations with lots of social interaction are draining for introverts, while these types of encounters tend to fuel extroverts.

Introverts usually like to be alone and recharge by spending time by themselves.

A person with introverted tendencies might still like to go to parties and socialize with others. However, they will likely need to spend time alone afterward to recharge.

Being introverted has to do with how you gather energy.

Hanging out with friends on Friday might max out your energy, leaving you craving solitude on Saturday to rest and refuel.

If you have any articles or research studies to suggest that introvertion is not associated with a psychological drain or that it is a condition of choice, I would appreciate reading them. I’m always receptive to new information that may change my mind on a topic.

I would consider that definition to be overly simplistic and failing to capture an important point that is often referenced when describing traits of an introvert. Introverts find social interactions, especially in large groups, to be draining. I believe this to be a key distinction between people that avoid social interaction out of misanthropy or frustration or fear or depression or any of a myriad of other reasons that a person might seek solitude over the company of others.

The reason and motivation behind the desire to avoid social interactions plays a role in determining a course of action in responding to them and ending them early. If you find them draining, a simple “sorry, I gotta get going”, when you start to feel drained, is all you would r really need. However, if social interactions trigger a negative emotional response, then more tools would be needed.

Here are a few references on the topic of introvertion:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/introversion

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/introvert-definition

https://www.healthline.com/health/what-is-an-introvert

Mutually exclusive or not. Nothing in the description nor the original post depicts introvert behavior.

Thanks. Fixed my comment.