They were a thing when I was a kid, but ever since the generation that organised them has passed away, they’ve stopped happening. I do kinda missed them. I thought they were weird as a kid without much close family, but I still enjoyed them.

All fixed. We had an issue where one of our servers reports space in use that isn’t being used, and nothing short of a restart will fix it. We’ve done that, cleared up the space and upgraded piefed at the same time (and by we, I mean Kaity)

We’re on it. It pulled our piefed instance down too. And of course it happened in the middle of flooding (IRL flooding)!

Admin hat on here.

You need to be very careful about how you phrase topics like this. It’s ok to express your opinion. It’s ok to say that surgery is not for you and to be open about why.

What’s not ok is telling people that surgery, or any other aspect of folk living life authentically on their own terms isn’t isn’t for them either.

You can talk about your own experiences and perspectives, but don’t push them on to others

You don’t. Because that’s the goal of the bigots. You treat everyone as good faith until proven otherwise, and/or you simply don’t interact with folk you’re unsure about

It actually set me back quite a bit for a while. I’d lived my life telling myself that I could do the things i struggled to do if i was serious about it. My diagnosis forced me to accept that I couldn’t do the things though, and no amount of 'getting serious " would make my ADHD go away. And so, for the first time in my life, I felt broken, like there was an inherent fault with me that could never be solved or fixed. I got through that eventually, but it was really rough for a while, precisely because it forced me to be aware of something I’d been actively avoiding being aware of…

tl;dr - This term that folk use to talk about their experience in a way that prioritises lived experience over medicalisation is problematic because it doesn’t talk about their experiences through the lens of medicalisation

I was diagnosed in my 30s, after my kid got diagnosed. I didn’t magically become neurodiverse when I got a diagnosis, and it didn’t change my life in any meaningful way, yet the authors of that article would claim that there is some fundamental difference between the version of me that didn’t have a diagnosis and the version of me that does

I’m aware Mr Beast exists, but I know nothing about him. I mean, I would have assumed he is awful, because money does that to people, but I’d have nothing to back up my gut feeling.

And I’ve never heard of KSI…

Oh oh, yo, porfa!

The quote you gave suggests that companies are legally expected to maximise profit, but with caveats/nuance. It also highlights shareholder pressure towards the same goal.

If the claim is that fear of legal action doesn’t technically count as 'legally required ", then sure, I used the wrong word. But as I said elsewhere, it doesn’t change my point.

Boycotts aren’t pointless, because they force companies to change by attacking their bottom line/share value. It doesn’t make them moral, it just hits them where it hurts.

Companies are inherently immoral. Whether the pressure that creates that reality is from this particular case or whether it comes from self preservatio is genuinely irrelevant to my point.

Taking away Musk won’t make a company moral, because all publicly traded companies are immoral.

I don’t know why this particular case gets people ignoring the topic at hand to argue about it whenever it’s mentioned…

I answered it elsewhere. If you want real discussion, respond to that.

I answered elsewhere in the conversation chain.

It’s a consequence of the eBay vs Newmark ruling. Arguments against it are theoretical only and haven’t been tested, and would be next to impossible to achieve with extant companies that don’t already have advertised social priorities.

let’s be honest if it’s simply self preservation rather than some oft-cited but wrong assertion of the law.

For the purposes of my point in this discussion, the distinction doesn’t matter. Whether the pressure to maximise profit over morality is a legal requirement or self preservation, the end result is inherent immorality

Publicly traded companies are legally required to maximise profit for their shareholders. There inherently immoral.

Al menos lo fue un oportunidad para practicar tu español!

Thanks for that. I was always curious how they were able to survive staff change

The screenshot you posted of PugJesus is unrelated to the voting situation, except in so far as he left the fediverse, but then came back to post that comment.

It’s a Piefed feature that appeared when we updated the instance. I don’t think we can disable it completely, but when I get the chance, I’ll increase it to a stupidly large number to make it effectively unlimited.