What are the bull horns meant to be???

I know some of those words.

Nothing. It’s equally arbitrary as setting 0 to be the freezing point of water.

But it covers the weather for the vast majority of people, the vast majority of time, better than Celsius does. That’s what I mean.

If you want to remove sentimentality from your temperature then use Kelvin but Celsius is just as arbitrary and sentimental as Fahrenheit is.

Ah well I should have said metric measurement then. It is part of the metric system, yes?

If you can’t remember the number 32 then I guess. Personally I think it’s pretty bizarre to have negative temperatures all the time but whatever floats your boat.

Regarding losing all thermometers and data… if you lost the definition of Celsius there would be no way to recreate it. This seems maybe more likely then your scenario.

This is why Celsius is the only SI unit that isn’t just wholly better than its imperial counterpart. Both F and C are fairly arbitrary, but in my view F has the slight edge by giving numbers 0-100 in most weather conditions across earth.

Is that how this technology works? I’m not the most knowledgeable about tech stuff honestly (at least by Lemmy standards).

What? It’s totally different. The bracts in this species are puberulent while in the common species they are tomentose. Isn’t the difference obvious?

Pirating isn’t stealing but yes the collective works of humanity should belong to humanity, not some slimy cabal of venture capitalists.

Lol when I read a paper that only cites its own work it’s an immediate eye-roll from me. Usually the realm of people who can’t keep their own biases out of their work.

Maybe it’s different for some hyper-specific subfield where no one else is doing anything relevant but I think that’s pretty rare. I don’t know much about physics though. The papers I read are all biology.

My absolute favorite is when there’s two competing camps of researchers who steadfastly refuse to cite the other’s work on a topic. It’s very silly. Citing doesn’t mean you have to agree with all of their conclusions. Not doing so is obstinately refusing to acknowledge relevant data.

I don’t think the public knows that, that’s the problem.

And there are monkeys that steal drinks from beach resorts.

Is flat earth still a thing? I haven’t been hearing as much about it lately but maybe people just stopped caring.

I do wonder how long a movement that can be easily disproven by literally anyone can sustain itself. I mean sure, the true believers will stay but if anyone can go out and confirm the roundness of the earth themselves it makes it a bit tough to keep people who are on the fence…

The mitochondria is the powerhouse corn dog of the cell.

I think a big part of it is trauma from trump and his enablers. Honestly, a few years ago my sentiments might have been more similar to the people criticizing me but more thought made me realize how dangerous it is to leave this power in a small number of unaccountable people.

I agree, I was overly broad with this comment. But I think that even community management needs to be constrained from interfering with human expression when there is no harm being done. And non-sexual nudity is clearly not harmful.

I guess I need to say this again: I’m talking about the way things should work, not how they do currently. Sure, it’s totally legal for private companies to ban any content they want to. And in some societies, the king can legally murder people. The legality of those situations is not synonymous with their morality.

If you are arguing that legally, YouTube is permitted to remove this content, you’ve misunderstood what this thread is about. If you’re arguing they should be allowed to do this, then please focus your statements on that topic.

By the way, I think private malls are also pretty questionable. Community space should be managed by the community, and it should be managed with respect for individual freedoms. But this is not really a comparable situation unless there was a mall that hosted a huge proportion of the products being sold. Exclusion from this mall, even if there are minor alternatives, is not just a matter of personal preference. It’s harmful to be excluded if that’s where everyone is.

As far as rules in town squares: of course. But these rules are typically determined democratically and are limited so as to respect human freedom. That’s what I’m asking for in this case as well. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be rules at all.

I reject the premise that YouTube belongs to the executives or shareholders at Alphabet. It is a community platform at this point, and its management should reflect that.

If Alphabet happened to own an entire city I would also oppose their right to restrict expression there. Once a space, physical or digital, comes to be used in certain ways, it should no longer anyone’s personal property.

I think these mega-platforms are way too different from an individual’s website to make that equivalence. The dominant social media companies are, as Elon Musk eloquently put it before shitting all over his own moral principles, more akin to a town square than a back yard. The fact that they are privately owned is a corruption resulting from our authoritarian legal structure—it doesn’t make them morally equivalent to a website I use and produce by myself.

YouTube is a place that tolerates almost any viewpoint or type of content. No one thinks that they actively support or endorse this content. In fact, US law explicitly exempts them from being responsible for it. If that’s the case, why should we grant them the authority to decide what should or shouldn’t be posted there?

Now, there is certainly content, in contrast to non-sexual nudity, that does direct harm, and I support the removal of such content. But either way, I don’t think YouTube deserves the unilateral authority to decide what that looks like. I’d much rather see it managed communally and democratically.

Frankly, I was mostly mouthing off here, not trying to voice deep moral reasoning but I appreciate your thoughtful reply. I’m actually not sure that fundamental human rights do exist—at least not in all circumstances. As you point out, they sometimes conflict and we need to adjudicate whose rights are more fundamental in a given situation.

You have a good point and I generally agree that there does exist a tension here. I think where it breaks down is when a platform becomes so large and dominant that there isn’t really any significant alternative. I think morally, this shifts my reasoning away from just a collection of individuals deciding what they want on their platform towards an almost state-like entity. And with that power dynamic I am much more skeptical of their unilateral authority to control what is or isn’t posted on their platform. Given the size and structure of YouTube, it makes more sense to think of it as space that belongs to and should be managed by the community and with respect for individual rights of expression. And I feel strongly that non-sexual nudity is not only not harmful, but that it is very harmful to repress, as we see in this specific example.

I’m not talking about the US constitution here. I’m saying it is a fundamental human right regardless of the law. What clothing to wear (or not) is part of that freedom.

Private companies should also not restrict fundamental freedoms. I’m aware they’re allowed to currently.