is all knowledge based on faith

It’s based on assumption, not faith. If we can trust our senses, and if things will continue to be as they have been, then the things we are learning have value. As long as you can recognize that everything could in theory end or completely change at any moment, it’s not blind belief.

This does not apply when you can move or make your own instance. It’s like complaining about tyranny inside your own house. Like, what?

I think a perfectly acceptable line to draw is “Is it reasonable to expect a large majority of the people on this instance would want this other instance blocked?” If the answer is yes, block them. If somebody has a problem with that, move to a different instance.

I don’t really understand what the problem is.

Cadence or intonation depending on what you mean.

Edit: This would seem to sum up the various parts of speech pretty concisely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosody_(linguistics)

I’m sympathetic to the view that artists should be paid for their work. Collectively, artists have produced so much, and these tech companies are funnelling all their work into a machine and recycling it into new works, and profiting off that, without any compensation for the people partially responsible for this new reality. I’m also not interested in people who argue “but actually it’s not copying that’s not how the technology works it’s actually a really complic-” yeah I don’t care. Without the artists you would have nothing.

BUT

Don’t confuse the business practices that make this technology a reality with the technology itself. These tools are incredible, and will result in things that could have never existed previously. I just believe we need to have serious conversations about what they mean for our future.

Does it flush automatically? Could just be a sensor of some kind.

If not I’d report it to the hotel.

I thought this as well, but I’ve started to think they could be useful if I follow way more aggressively, and create a list that is “what I want on my feed” and default to that. It’s stupidly cumbersome, but would have the desired effect. Of course you’re right that they should just let you add directly to a list - I think the reasoning for the current functionality is to limit stalking/harassment, though I don’t exactly understand how that is inhibited at all.

Fascism isn’t a problem we can solve by just not allowing it the more oppressively we try to ban them the more secretive and the more fuel we give to their extremes

This is a commonly held belief that is actually just not true. Certain garbage opinions and behaviours will fester and spread and absolutely make a space worse. Communities that allow toxic behaviour will both push away reasonable people, and attract people with toxic views. Setting proper boundaries, rules, and conduct are important for maintaining a place of healthy discussion.

I don’t mind if they have somewhere to talk with each other - I think you’re correct it’s pointless to try to stop that - I’m just not interested in spending any time there.

Limiting downvotes forces other people to think about bad ideas more, at the cost of letting people with bad ideas think about their bad ideas less. Ideally the bad idea has some tangible rebuttal that the original poster can consider, but ultimately the onus is on you to understand why your ideas aren’t landing. This is all presupposing an idea that is worthy of consideration. People aren’t obligated to convince themselves you’re right, you have the job of convincing others they are wrong, or realizing that you yourself are wrong.

Personally, I wouldn’t worry about it too much. Use what you think is appropriate. If you’re unsure, use they/them; if they correct you, adjust accordingly. If you want to be most accommodating, default to they/them for everyone you meet unless they correct you or you learn otherwise. If you’d like others to feel more comfortable providing pronouns, providing your own - even if you believe it is obvious - can be a way to help normalize it for others.

The non-specific disdain people have for reporters, media, critics, news, etc. as if everything is created equal. I think there are many people working in news and entertainment media doing good work, yet a common refrain is “media today sucks”. I think it speaks more to how you consume, what you consume, and what you expect, if you believe there is some grand degradation of journalism. Media has certainly become more fragmented, with niches of content and wider levels of quality; the floor is lower, but I also believe the ceiling is higher.

Well actually, the dwarves were created by the smith god Aulë deep in darkness under the mountains of Middle-Earth, made to be strong and unyielding. I don’t think he cared much about their reaction to the sun, it stands to reason their skin would mirror the materials used by the god that created them - clay and stone. A darker skin tone makes more sense to me frankly.

I prefer not to consume content I don’t seek out, and I don’t really seek out YouTube content.

I understand the sentiment, but there are things not worth knowing. I don’t care who was drafted in 1987 by the San Diego NFL team. I don’t care about the extras who appear in the 1957 film Witness for the Prosecution. I don’t care what you had for breakfast. My point is, I think your issue is less about curiosity, but of values. People who don’t value the things you care about, or worse, don’t even value the things they purport to care about.

Some game-of-telephone misinformation originating from this article - though it has gone from Google killed it (which this article states), to it was a protocol that allowed Facebook and Google to communicate and then got killed, to Facebook killed it.