71–80 of 557 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is literally the thing twitter was designed around.
The design you're referring to includes the block button.
Linux was designed to run hardware but can be configured to block hardware. (Not cpus or ram, but you get my point)
Personally, I stopped reading after this: > If the SARS family of coronaviruses had emerged just a decade earlier it's quite likely we'd be on the brink of civilizational, if not species-level, extinction by now—SARS1 has 20% mortality among patients, MERS (aka SARS2) is up around 35-40% fatal, SARS-NCoV19, aka SARS3, is down around the 1-4% fatality level. I It felt sensational to me to the point the I could no long…
Personally, I stopped reading after this: > If the SARS family of coronaviruses had emerged just a decade earlier it's quite likely we'd be on the brink of civilizational, if not species-level, extinction by now—SARS1 has 20% mortality among patients, MERS (aka SARS2) is up around 35-40% fatal, SARS-NCoV19, aka SARS3, is down around the 1-4% fatality level. I It felt sensational to me to the point the I could no long…
Personally, I stopped reading after this: > If the SARS family of coronaviruses had emerged just a decade earlier it's quite likely we'd be on the brink of civilizational, if not species-level, extinction by now—SARS1 has 20% mortality among patients, MERS (aka SARS2) is up around 35-40% fatal, SARS-NCoV19, aka SARS3, is down around the 1-4% fatality level. I It felt sensational to me to the point the I could no long…
Furthermore, the plague had a catastrophic impact on population - in just a few years it killed upwards of 50% of Europe's entire population! I wouldn't call that "extinction level" but it's really not something to shirk at so cavalierly. What would be the impact on civilization of losing half the world's population today over just a few years? Whether or not it would lead to a decline into extinction is kind of academic; undoubtedly, it would lead to a fundamental shift in society and civilization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He'll block you on twitter for politely quibbling with his presentation of facts.
I'm not a twitter user, but this is the equivalent of "I'm not interested in being notified if this person contacts me again" right? Like me putting a Gmail rule in place to move messages from a specific source, say a specific mailing list thread that I'm not interested in out of my inbox. Is this considered taboo on Twitter?
It’s basically twitter’s fault/design choice that choosing not to see someone’s replies to you also blocks them from seeing anything you post [0] (of course, cleverly circumvented by simply logging out)
> Blocking helps people in restricting specific accounts from contacting them, seeing their Tweets, and following them.
There were some court cases [1] to this effect since politicians would block annoying trolls/constituents, but this apparently violates the blocked users’ first amendment rights to access the public information. I don’t know, never made much sense to me, point is, blocking someone is, I wouldn’t say taboo as it’s quite normal, but it’s also very annoying to be blocked.
[0] https://help.twitter.com/en/using-twitter/someone-blocked-me...
[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/02/can-government-officia...
That’s a scary thought.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, muting seems far less aggressive than blocking to me. For one thing the mutee doesn't even know it has happened. I don't quite understand why some Twitter users seems to take delight in announcing they have blocked someone.
Blocking on Twitter is such a meaningless feature. You can just log out to access the content someone who blocked you. It’s like the feature only exists to make people feel good about signaling their actions to the blocked party. Muting fulfills all the goals those features are supposed to solve. Does blocking actually add anything sensible on top that I missed?
Should be be worried that the author of Accelerando complains about things going too fast? Future is complex, and not only "good" developments happens and start changing everything faster than ever before, bad ones does too. And we aren't rational enough to avoid the bad ones. Anyway, I'm more worried about the consequences of climate change that are not the slow rise of the global sea level than about COVID. That is…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really understand your tone. I think you are mocking me, but I'm not sure why you think you have the necessary context to do that in an effective way.
It doesn't read as mockery of you (or anyone) to me. It seems like criticisms of "random nobodies" on Twitter.
“If the SARS family of coronaviruses had emerged just a decade earlier it's quite likely we'd be on the brink of civilizational, if not species-level, extinction by now—SARS1 has 20% mortality among patients, MERS (aka SARS2) is up around 35-40% fatal, SARS-NCoV19, aka SARS3, is down around the 1-4% fatality level. If SARS1 had gone pandemic we might plausibly have lost a billion people within two years.” That’s a sc…