I am a professional mechanic, worked at several dealers. Nearly every car had a safety mechanism that was at least one or several of those. The only ones I didnt mention are ones that glow in the dark for trunk releases. But outside of cars that were built before mechanical safety releases were commonly incorporated in design, its not common to see mechanical safety releases that are completely unmarked. Some have a plastic cover, like the transmission neutral release, but they still generally have red/yellow/orange markings, text on them, or they glow in the dark.

Usually manual release safety levers or buttons have red or yellow markings on them, yes. Sometimes they have a logo or icon to denote what they open, and sometimes they are marked with “PULL TO OPEN” or some other similar phrase.

They make safety glass shatter tools and they usually also come with seatbelt cutters attached to them as well. Looks like a really large, sharp ballpoint pen tip.

It doesnt look marked to me. If someone saw a door like that they would have absolutely no idea that was a lever/button unless they read through the entire owner’s manual. Which let’s be honest, nobody does that these days.

Instance blocking in Connect for Lemmy also hides all comments from all people in the blocked instance. It doesn’t make them disappear like blocking a user does, but the comment appears with the body text replaced by a button that allows you to optionally unhide the message (like how Discord used to hide messages from blocked users).

Defederation should literally be a last resort option IMO. Otherwise you end up like Beehaw: isolated on an island away from like 90% of the Fediverse. Great for moderation but terrible for discoverability and growth.

Lemmy is pretty much the Linux version of Reddit, and as someone who has used Linux before, it is up to the end user to do all the legwork with Linux as opposed to something like Windows which is pretty much plug and play. Lemmy does best when it gives as many options to its users as possible, including preferring local user instance blocking as compared to defederating.

As an example, I like anime. Let’s say hypothetically that you don’t like anime and that I have an account on your instance. And let’s say you hate anime, actually. You want your instance to defederate from ani.social (and any other instance that hosts anime content) because you hate anime, but I don’t because I like the memes and discussions from there. How do you resolve this? Now think about what happens with an instance that hosts content that is of a different political ideology than you. Its really the same problem. By calling for defederation you effectively say that your opinions and viewpoints are the only correct ones, and that everyone else on your instance of choice needs to align to your viewpoint. In this case, this is why it would be better for you, the user with the problem with those instances, to locally block that content.

I can understand if a particular instance is so full of spam bots or people that attack the instance with illegal post content, such as posting CSAM anywhere and everywhere, but in those cases it would be up to the instance admins, and a responsible admin will make a post explaining whats going on and in some cases even ask for the community to give input on it.

I mean, I am not fond of the head admins running Lemmy.ml, but you should just do what I do and block the instance. Don’t know what you use to browse Lemmy but I use Connect for Lemmy on Android and it supports instance blocking.

No reason to prevent other people on your instance from interacting with instances they want to. Not everyones ideologies have to match your own, and different people want to see different content.

I take it you’ve never interacted with the head admins there? I had the displeasure once and they aren’t really open to conversation. Once they have decided on something, then they won’t actually accept any sort of discussion, you’ll just be talking to a brick wall.

Nothing is stopping someone from scraping data off of Lemmy. It has probably already been happening.

We built a data set of 45 million comments on news articles on the Huffington Post website between January 2013 and February 2015.

I am no expert but I feel like this is a really bad data set choice for this study.

Lemmy has pretty lousy security in general, so really nobody should be storing any data on their Lemmy account that is important. Password, username, and any personally identifying information should never be shared across multiple sites or with other users, but this is just cybersecurity 100.

Don’t criticize Linux

There is a market for everything. But people would probably figure out that none of the posts are real so nobody would use it anymore. Unless you made it into a game where you roleplay as a forum admin, somewhat akin to HyperSpace Outlaw.

Of that one problematic community, there are like 6 users. Just block the users and the community. Very easy.

Why should we punish people that decided to create an account on that instance just because of the like 6 people posting content you don’t like by removing the other user’s right to access this instance via their account on that instance?

Just because you don’t like the content doesn’t mean you have to instantly defederate. I am getting really tired of this increasing trend of wanting to immediately defederate just because some users don’t like or agree with the content. I don’t like that content either, but it is so easy for me as an individual user to block content I don’t like to see.

Unless the users on that instance are maliciously posting illegal content in droves onto other instances or something, there is no reason defederation should be considered. Defederation is a last resort option, not a first response to something you don’t like or agree with.

Beehaw seemed too fast and heavyhanded with defederating a while back. IMO, defederation is really a “last resort” style of option, not a “first response,” so Beehaw using it essentially as a “first response” to some of the bigger instances kinda told me that Beehaw wanted to be off on an island by itself. Like it wanted to be a private forum instead of a Lemmy instance.

I don’t miss Beehaw, and Beehaw disappearing from Lemmy wouldn’t matter to me, because as far as I am concerned it kinda already did that.

The purpose of Lemmy is to be open and connected, not a private walled garden. If it doesn’t fit what you want, then use something else.

Basically, what is there for 90% of Lemmy users to miss, if you effectively banned 90% of Lemmy users by defederating the biggest instances in the first place? They already dont interact or see your content, unless they’re using multiple accounts, which would be no different if Beehaw wasnt a Lemmy instance at all.

These people keep causing problems and inconveniencing everyone except the people that actually have the influence to do what they want.

The only thing they have accomplished is making “Just Stop” people look like clowns, and making everyone else dislike them and their message.

Just Stop Oil activists are among the worlds ultimate clowns.

With the way the Beehaw admins were acting back when they defederated, I wouldn’t expect Beehaw to ever refederate.

They were happy and quick to defederate and seemed proud of it.

Wearing a native american headdress to a Chiefs game would not be considered stolen valor unless the person is implying that they are actually a native american chief, just as wearing a purple heart previously mentioned would constitute stolen valor if the person implies that they were injured in the military but infact were not.

If there was a football team like “New Jersey Admirals,” then I don’t think it would be unusual or stolen valor for people attending to dress in an admiral costume. They are replicating the mascot of the sport team, not implying that they themselves are actually admirals of a military.

If you dressed as a Sikh and attended the party, intent may come into play if the party was not one where attendees would be wearing costumes or clothing not common to the culture of the surrounding area. Was the person wearing the clothing because they liked it, or were they intentionally trying to slander people of a specific culture? Is targetted slander the same as wearing something you like the look of? Even if the person is not being respectful and makes no effort to learn about the culture, is it really worth it to be mad about instead of being happy to see some elements of your culture being spread to places where it may not have otherwise?

For example, Americans are often called fat, lazy, unintelligent, gun crazy anarchists, and are portrayed by many foreign media as such. I don’t get offended at charicatures of Americans from other countries or nations. Partially because its kinda true, but also it means that the other nation is being introduced to Americans. Some people may see that and think “That’s ridiculous, they can’t all be like that,” leading those interested to look it up and see what America is about or like. Some may choose to vacation where they otherwise may have never taken an interest in America. I mean, I wouldn’t recommend it because America kinda sucks depending on where they go, but its only an example.

I don’t think that’s a problem. Even if a person has no idea why a culture does something, but they like how it looks, I smile when I see them attempting to copy it. Even if they get it wrong, they thought that part of the culture was cool. And maybe them replicating incorrectly can lead to a new emergent culture.

I think a military medal is a bit different from something like cultural specific clothing, foods, or music. That calls into it stolen valor, which is a different issue. But putting a purple colored heart shape onto something isn’t a problem.

Additionally, costumes aren’t a problem either, so long as it is worn in an appropriate place. For example, wearing a military costume to a costume party, or other event where people are expected to wear costumes. It wouldn’t be appropriate to wear a military costume when trying to enter a military complex or parade, but that is generally pretty obvious to anyone regardless of culture.

This isn’t racist, but that has become a pretty popular term to call people lately.

Different cultures are not bad. I even say they’re good. For example, people who complain about stuff like “cultural appropriation” make me laugh. They want to hoard their culture to themselves, rather than celebrate that more people are taking an interest in their culture.

The problem, as I said, is migrants that do not integrate. Which is not all migrants. Cultures can be integrated and blended together, you see it all over the USA. But there are some migrants that hold onto their culture like a dragon hoarding gold, and you can practically see it like a wall in a city. They refuse to integrate and instead maintain a hard line between them and the original population. It’s like pockets of different countries within a culturally mixed country, rather than people of different cultures living together.