ricecake

First, you're assuming that most successful assassins are the unstable nutcases. It could just be that it's more memorable when the motivation is "make jodi foster love me" than "stop an expansionist imperialist who's destroying the lives of the common man".

You're also more likely to be a lone assassin if you don't conform to social norms because social norms say not to kill people.

The most prolific assassins are just common soldiers whose names we don't even record.

You'd be surprised how many people don't. It's a good fun fact, and I stand by supporting arms reduction regardless. :)

Math.
Our typical warhead (100kt) leaves a 200m radius crater if used to maximize the crater size. (Experiment in using nukes for mining and terrain shaping). We have less than 6000. 6000 π (0.2 km)^2^ ~ 6000(0.125km^2^ ) ~ 754km^2^ < 2,586 km^2^.

Nukes are dangerous because (other than the obvious) of what they do to the air, not the ground.

"fun" fact: we could never actually glass the earth, but with the success of disarmament work we're at the point where, with perfect geometry, ideal yields, and a generous definition of "glass" the biggest country we could do that to is Luxembourg.

The moral of the story: strategic arms reduction treaties work, they're just very slow.

You may be conflating the quakers with a different religious group.
While still a religious group, the quakers are largely one of the most accepting. They were initially given trouble by the Dutch. Their numbers have never really been high enough to have the type of social sway that you're thinking.

Maybe you're thinking the puritans or pilgrims? They're the ones who kinda took over. Shame, inherent sin and all that.
The quakers are the pacifist abolitionists who think church should be a group of people quietly thinking in someone's home until someone feels moved to share an idea.

While it would be better if our country was less religiously locked in, I'm pretty sure if it was the quakers that rose to prevalence we'd be way better off, even if only from the "not my job to enforce your morality" part.

Hey, let's not turn dislike for the technology into dislike for people.

You saw someone copying and pasting back and forth between email and chatgpt, message coworkers and then work on a chart in Excel.
For all you know he was using chatgpt to translate the emails, not as a prosthetic mind.

group that all had very Indian looking names

What does the ethnicity of who he messaged matter? If anything it lends credence to "guy used translation software for work email".

At no point in the 3 hour flight did a conscious thought enter his mind

completely dependent on AI. Without it their lives and careers would fall apart. This guy would pay anything for it. He cannot function without it

That's a mighty leap to make from what you described.
Saying someone else didn't have conscious thought reeks of "I'm the main character and everyone else is an NPC".

There are people who use it. There are people who pay for it, and there are people who over use and over pay for it. That can be true and you can be upset by it without demoting people below "consciousness".

Conservatives seem to oscillate between isolationism and aggressive intervention. They're both from the stance of American primacy, either using our military for our benefit and to enforce our wishes or saying the world has nothing to offer us we need and that we're better off not extending effort or energy on the rest of the world.

Currently our conservatives are swinging towards isolationism, which is why the anti immigration rhetoric and pulling out of international organizations was very popular. That's not compatible with a plan to forcibly annex another country.

So for the first part, I don't disagree at all. I just don't think the logistics or theoretical necessity is a bearing on the symbolic-ness of it. Same for the effectiveness of it. Even if it changed literally nothing and no one would ever know I still wouldn't shake hands with someone I considered evil.

I don't see defining a subset of what you consider evil, like dissemination of hate speech, to be a downside.

There's a lot of complex questions around a platform curating ideological content which could possibly make them loose certain platform protections. Right now most platforms are roughly content neutral because it allows them to be viewed as platforms, rather than publishers. This is more a response to the claim that there's no reason for them not to remove ice. It may or may not be compelling, but it's a real reason.

As for the use of the word "service", sometimes my hands type slower than my brain thinks. My intent was to convey "those who develop and control the mastodon license". Hopefully my original statement makes more sense in that context.
Those are the people providing the printing press schematic analog. Obviously an idea can't support an ideology in that sense.

I'm not of the opinion either supports them in a way that's worth getting angry over.
We also aren't talking about being angry at ISPs for being willing to deliver packets to and from ice or Nazis, or any of the other entities that do less then the most they could possibly do to distance themselves.

Says the fact that it's come up multiple times amongst a wide swath of the open source community, and look about you. Those licenses aren't used. One or two exist and have a vanishingly small usage level and a couple more I have been "in progress" for years.
The people who write most of the open source licenses have explanations for why it's not compatible.

Group behavior is a collective decision and a reflection of the group.

No, you're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm not the person you were replying to.
Mastodon is a piece of software. It has a license, just like bluesky or any other. You can put a clause in the license saying the software cannot be used for the dissemination of hate speech. The open source community has discussed this and decided it goes against the principles of free software and open source.

If you're mad at one and not the other, you're applying different standards because being part of the fediverse weighs more.

Personally I hold platforms to a different standard and so I'm neither mad at mastodon nor bluesky. I just think it's hypocritical to be mad at someone for publishing a fascists letter but not be mad at the person who gave the same fascist a printing press.

So the mastodon service supports Nazis.

nobody owns it and anyone can run it

They could have chosen a license that forbid usage for spreading hate. They put "free software" and "open source" above blocking hate speech.
They're providing software to Nazis, and I don't really see how that makes them better than providing a place to post.

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying that the people who are saying that they've lost all faith in Americans because we haven't full actualized a revolution in less than a year are being shitty for no good reason. Armchair revolutionaries who think that it should be done now because it's supposed to be as simple as "organize, kick them out, make a new government and they all just say shucks while we arrest them".

As you said, people are getting organized. But to some people outside the US, that's not enough and we should be done deposing the government by now. That's what I'm saying is unreasonable.

Based on the finish dude in your icon and finish instance name, I'm assuming you're in Finland.
Organization takes longer here than it would there based purely on population. I'm in an average sized state. Our population is twice that of Finland. The state is about the same size as the country.
Even if we were all on board even for a strike, it's still gonna take longer than so many people seem to expect us to be able to do it in.