Oh cool, reminds me of the C&C underground missions in Red Alert, taking Tanya through the base. I always took so long with those missions, but i’m a natural turtler.

What are the two communities?

I only ask out of general interest as its such a specific number, if you’re not comfortable sharing, don’t feel obliged.

Only a communist deals in absolutes! … wait… thats not it…

What i hate is when someone gets offended i don’t initially recognise them when they’ve got half their face covered.

Take the fucken glasses off and say hi properly you awkward ass bastards! I got shit to do, and i don’t need to feel bad for the next half hour because you made me squint to recognise who the fuck you are!

Ha! The discoursive whiplash would be immense.

But i have the impression the people over at beehaw don’t wish to interact in such an open way as many other instances do.

So the decision to disengage should be treated as equally as important as those wishing to interact?

Responded to ferk, but i’s trying to consider your comment as well.

Okay, i think i’ve understood what you’re saying here. I’m not sure it works with the example for Beehaw.

I think i get what you’re saying. Especially if i consider a large instance like LW’s point of view. A large/general instance where large numbers of disparately opinioned users have gathered, freedom of association must necessarily be more individual to the user themselves than the instance as any kind of individualised entity.

Remembering the comments around the beehaw defederation, this was a case where a group of like minded people on their instance acted as a group to disassociate from the wider basket of instances. Their instance has an individual identity they wished to protect.

I feel like the discussion assumes an individual users wish for seemless interactions is more important than the wish of other users to have the choice of non-interaction. I think the assumption should be they are equally as important?

@blaze@lemmy.dbzer0.com

I prefer the recommendation algorithm led by my fellow up/down voters. Anything else, i know of, which is not much, runs too great a risk of undetectable pernicious influence.

I’m pretty sure that was Beehaw’s decision to disengage. But thats freedom of association for ya.

Is this Phil Dunphy?

Organ attacks a good one.

Find the lesser posted contributors to your field/s of interest, read them, post them, share your thoughts.

This means you are actively using social media, actively considering different texts in subjects you already have an interest in, and actively using your brain to make considered contributions.

This is my go to. Take a look at my post history in aussie-enviro. I continually go out of my way to find environmental or conservation organisations themselves instead of waiting only for a news site like Guardian to do a write up themselves.

I’m finding my reading speed and attentiveness has improved, and i’ve better knowledge recall, especially on key details. Its of course fun as well.

Good answer.

She is telling you how she goes about making decisions i.e. deferring to authority.

This is really insightful. Thanks.

So, further to mu previous comment, no you shouldn’t need to create an account on each instance you want to explore. At best creating an account on the instance might make navigability better.

Mastodon is single developer

I think he has a few people with him now. But i listened to the interview at the start of the year, so i’m starting to the detail.

Exploring instances should be as easy as looking up any other website. At least to get their ‘local’ front page. Or just navigate to them through that link above.

As an example you could look up jlai.lu, a french instance. They’re pretty active.

No idea on Mastodon myself. I’ve heard a couple interviews of the developer, seems like a cool guy. But thats about all i can say.

I’s playing round with this instance and community finder the other night, works really well. Might be useful to find a more active community that you’ll enjoy.

https://lemmyverse.net/communities

The instance could be a problem if you scroll through the ‘local’ feed often and thats where you see a lot of things you don’t wish to see. A European or special interest instance might suit your context, (Portuguese?), better.

I spend more time on my ‘local’ (aussie zone) feed than ‘subscribed’ or ‘all’ and its definitely nicer, so a move like this can work.

But you could also optimise your own ‘subscriber’ feed as another option.

1. Often people use those lanes to speed. If a car ahead is overtaking at or within a reasonable range of the speed limit, but not at the speed the speeder wants to travel. The speeder must be patient, they don’t get to dictate what manoeuvres are happening ahead.

2. The argument you present at the end isn’t logical,

… Always do the safest thing.

I can largely agree with this sentiment, but you say before,

People who sit in lane 3 at 69mph are breaking the law and likely to cause an accident by forcing people to pass on the wrong side out of frustration (yes illegal but they will do it)…

If undercutting is the most unsafe thing for the person behind to do in the situation, then as your sentiment captures, the frustrated party undercutting are still in the wrong.

They are in the wrong because, they have failed to ‘always do the safest thing’ in the given situation.

3. Never be the reason someone else does something stupid on the road.

Nice sentiment again, but it implicitly assigns a rigid cause and effect regime to a situation where the ‘frustrated party’ behind has their own agency and likely as much training. There is no necessity that they undercut, it is a choice the party behind makes. The cause does not necessitate that effect, at best it could contribute.

In essence the sentiment shifts the blame from the person causing a potential accident (the undercutter), to the person ahead who, at worst, is causing poor traffic conditions.