Folk is pretentious? It literally means common people, the opposite of pretentiousness. I am thinking that you don’t have much familiarity with the word nor the people that use it. It does not carry the meaning that you seem to think it does.
You are likely hearing /seeing it being used by people raised in an area where that is common vernacular to casually identify a group of people that share a culture.
Yes, but they would be separate accounts (comments, subscribed y communities, messages, etc). I have an account on lemm.ee and lemmy.world which I actively use. It can get a bit annoying making sure that I stay subscribed to the same communities on both, but it’s also nice to get different feeds.
Another option would be to stand up your own closed instance, so your account is the only one. That way storage and bandwidth should be minimal enough that you can host at home and also have full control over settings on your instance.
Not lost, but inactive / isolated. As I understand it, when a user on insurance A subscribes to a community, votes, or comments on a community on instance B, that content is copied to insurance A and the two instances will sync their changes together. If instance B shuts down or the two instances defederate, then the content on instance A stays intact, but it no longer syncs with the source of truth.
Is each instance like another person with a server?
Yeah. I would assume that most, if not all, open instances are going through a 3rd party hosting service, but nothing stopping them from being hosted on hardware in somebodies home.
Could that person just shut it down whenever they wanted to?
Yup. Anytime and for any reason. It might cause a moment of disruption, but the beauty of federation is that you can always setup an account on a new instance or create your own.
Are there any companies that have invested in hosting Lemmy/ other fediverse servers?
Yes. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Facebook federating their Threads services. I’m sure that there are others.
There are studies that show introvertion is not a “preference”, but rather the result of increased blood flow to certain parts of the brain. Ref: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9989562/
There are other studies showing a “high reactive” or “low reactive” response to unfamiliar events and stimuli in infants and it’s correlation to behavioral inhibitions as toddlers. While it requires some extrapolation, this suggests that introvertion may be a a condition of “nature” rather than “nurture”. Ref: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4283938/
Let me know if you are interested and I can send you additional peer reviewed studies and papers on the topic. Personality and human behavior is a fascinating topic.
Yes, I did read those articles. Allow me to highlight some of the points from those articles which bolster my argument that the avoiding our limiting of social interactions of introverts is rooted in finding those interactions to be exhausting and mentally draining.
they enjoy one-on-one engagement in calm environments, which is more suited to the make-up of their nervous system. Evidence suggests that, unlike with extroverts, the brains of introverts do not react strongly to viewing novel human faces; in such situations they produce less dopamine, a neurotransmitter associated with reward.
Introverts gain energy from reflection and lose energy in social gatherings.
Highly stimulating situations with lots of social interaction are draining for introverts, while these types of encounters tend to fuel extroverts.
Introverts usually like to be alone and recharge by spending time by themselves.
A person with introverted tendencies might still like to go to parties and socialize with others. However, they will likely need to spend time alone afterward to recharge.
Being introverted has to do with how you gather energy.
Hanging out with friends on Friday might max out your energy, leaving you craving solitude on Saturday to rest and refuel.
If you have any articles or research studies to suggest that introvertion is not associated with a psychological drain or that it is a condition of choice, I would appreciate reading them. I’m always receptive to new information that may change my mind on a topic.
I would consider that definition to be overly simplistic and failing to capture an important point that is often referenced when describing traits of an introvert. Introverts find social interactions, especially in large groups, to be draining. I believe this to be a key distinction between people that avoid social interaction out of misanthropy or frustration or fear or depression or any of a myriad of other reasons that a person might seek solitude over the company of others.
The reason and motivation behind the desire to avoid social interactions plays a role in determining a course of action in responding to them and ending them early. If you find them draining, a simple “sorry, I gotta get going”, when you start to feel drained, is all you would r really need. However, if social interactions trigger a negative emotional response, then more tools would be needed.
Here are a few references on the topic of introvertion:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/introversion
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/introvert-definition
Mutually exclusive or not. Nothing in the description nor the original post depicts introvert behavior.
Thanks. Fixed my comment.
What you described is being antisocial asocial, not introverted.
“The Why Files” and “Kutzergart”.
If I’m really not ready to sleepy, I find the content interesting. If I am ready to sleep but my brain won’t shut down then I ignore the words and I find the voices very soothing and relaxing.
Think of it like this
“You can easily judge a person’s character by how they treats those who can do nothing for them.”
… or something really close to that. I’m too lazy to look up the actual quote right now.
I am happy to take your word for most of it, but it does not change my view. I am completely in favor of identifying and taking steps to remediate the underlining cause of all forms of crime rather than simply punishing violators. That being said, the hubris that an individual, or group of individuals supercedes the survival of an entire species is repugnant to me. I have no sympathy for anybody that actively contributes to the the extinction of another species (except mosquitos).
The one point of your argument that I do question is the “kill a rhino and get enough money to last a few years” claim. While I have not looked into the details in India, as I understand it, poachers in Africa can make roughly the equivalent of an average 1 month salary for killing 1 rhino. If, in India, they make enough money to last a few years than either poachers are almost exclusively first timers, which seems highly unlikely to me, or they are doing it for greed rather than survival, which would negate your argument of the restrictive hunting laws.
And if they were hunting non-endangered species for food, then I would be outraged by a lethal response, but that’s not the case here.
You are using 2 different analogies that contradict each other. The poachers are cultivating a product, similar to poppy and coca plants, not the street dealers, and the wealthy are the buyers / “users”.
So if they are poor and eradicating a species off the face of the planet, then they should get a pass? They have the equipment and skills to hunt non-endangered animals which would provide food for themselves and their family. Excess meat could likely be traded or sold. Poaching is not a crime of necessity.
Not really sure what Gizmodo thinks that Reddit “won”. They damaged their reputation, degraded the quality of their site, popularized competition, and embittered a significant portion of their volunteer labor force.
Fleek
Thankfully.
My favorite thing about the internet is hearing questions that I would never think to ask and seeing answers like this.
Thank you for helping to make the internet a bit more interesting.