I think it’s too late for this to be useful. Number spoofing is ultra-common these days and most of the unwanted calls I receive are from spoofed numbers that appear to come from local areas.

If we start blocking the spoofed numbers then eventually we’ll just be blocking every possible combination of digits that can exist.

What we really need first is better detection and blocking of calls using spoofed numbers.

I don’t even understand why there is a burden on the part of the insured to have to make a written request for this.

If you have a claim that is denied, the insurer should be required to provide the full details and reasons for the denial automatically at the time of the denial.

Domestic abusers shouldn’t have guns…this is true.

The problem is that responsible people get protection orders issued against them all the time (and what’s being discussed are protection orders, not convicted abusers)…because many states require no proof other than the word of the accuser…which inevitably leads to people weaponizing the process out of petty revenge or anger solely to make life hell for their ex. People convicted of domestic abuse would still lose their guns. What the article is discussing is whether people who’ve been accused without evidence should continue to have their rights stripped or not.

To keep the analogy going, they would have to have raped and beheaded the occupants of the death star before actually blowing them up…and the Death Star would have to have been an Imperial tourist destination with not just Imperial citizens, but also visiting citizens from all across the galaxy…but if that’s what George Lucas had filmed, I think there would have been a lot less sympathy for the rebels.

It’s critical to point out the primary scenario associated with the survey and chart data in that article.

“Given the scenario of irreversable brain injury”.

That changes everything.

Corporations should be held responsible for the emissions caused by their employee’s commuting.

This would really change the discussion about return to office.

Your comment is textbook sealioning.

Here are some basic definitions:

Instance: a Lemmy server with its collection of local users and local communities

Federation: allowing users of one instance the ability to participate and interact with the content and users of another instance

Defederation: “blocking” an entire instance and its users from participating and interacting with the content and users of another instance.

Every instance maintains a publicly visible “instances” list where you can see which instances are allowed/federated (listed as “Linked Instances” and which other instances are disallowed/defederated (listed as “Blocked Instances”. That list is always at the same predictable URL for every instance ( https://[instance]/instances ). For Lemmy.World, that list would be at https://lemmy.world/instances.

Instances operators also have the ability to surgically block specific users or specific communities from other instances. This doesn’t mean they have ‘defederated’, it just means they have blocked a specific use or instance. These are considered moderation activities and show up in an instance’s moderation log (also called the “modlog”). Every instance’s modlog is public and visible at the predictable URL of https://[instance]/modlog. For Lemmy.World, the modlog would be at https://lemmy.world/modlog. The modlog has a “filter by action” dropdown making it easy to find certain types of moderation activities. If you search the modlog for “removing communities” you can see the communities that an instance has removed or blocked.

In the case of the piracy communities, they were removed from Lemmy.world, but federation still exists between Lemmy.world and the other instances where those blocked communities still exist.

You specifically cite the example of piracy going away as a reason for wanting to compare instance’s defederations, but that activity had nothing to do with defederation. Lemmy.world is still federated with the instances that hosted the piracy communities.

It’s pretty well established that GMOs ultimately cause a measurable and significant loss of biodiversity…which is bad for many reasons. I think in this case the companies and the product are both bad.

I’ve got no complaints with your other arguments, though.

Non-human predators that hunt, kill, and eat other animals…do you consider them unethical, or is it only unethical for animals capable of inventing the concept of ‘ethics’?

You really should be directing your angst at the bastards who respond to advertising. If it weren’t for them, there would be no advertising at all because it would be completely unfeasible. Nobody would be willing to pay for something that has no return on investment.