Possible interpretation assuming positive intent: “Lol” in this case could mean “Oh shit, I didn’t realize that, damn the internet sucks at attribution. It’s funny that even I can get caught in it sometimes.”

“Lol” doesn’t have to be douchey if you don’t want it to be.

(I acknowledge that I don’t know @[email protected] and they could be a douche, but I choose to assume they’re not until proven otherwise)

“Hurt people hurt people”? (potential explanaiton, not justification)

I can’t remember who it was, but sometime in the last few years a VC or CEO wrote an article documenting their day and how they “worked 12 hours a day” or something like that. What I remember most is that their accounting of their work included their time at the gym, at least one meal, and something else that few if any employers would consider “working time”.

I agree that sometimes C-suite execs do work long hours sometimes, and I’ll differ from you in that sometimes those long hours are legitimate and valuable for a company. IMO, it’s not the norm nor is it generally worth the premium that most companies pay for those hours.

I can only imagine the world where we got to keep Aaron instead. 😭

The worst thing is that looking at this case, at least from what I’ve seen, Blake Lively’s side isn’t as “pristine” as they first appeared. “They” might be right. I hope I don’t end up siding with Candace Owens by the end of it. What frustrates me about both of these cases is that unless and until there is a public trial, nothing close to the truth will come out. But of course the tribalism has to start already.

In the Depp/Heard case, we got to see enough evidence that a relationship with either of them would have been problematic at best, abusive at worst. You can argue about who the worst was, but neither came away looking “clean,” IMO.

Here, it’s way too early to be “picking sides.” 🙄

I’m cool with your disagreement. It’s not known right now what the best strategy is, and I’ll concede I could be wrong on that one. I don’t know if it will resonate more to “focus on the worst billionaires” or push “no such thing as an ethical billionaire”.

I don’t see anything wrong with talking about the oligarchs as “kings” as well. I think that language could work just as well with Zuck, Bezos, etc. as it would with Trump.

I think it would have been better if she had used a “yes, and”, recognising that the Sanders/AOC rallies are bringing a lot of people out and getting them more engaged, then suggesting using the “kings” language on top of it.

For those who don’t know, Bluesky isn’t really federated. The only way to host a non-Bluesky instance required 1TB of storage in July 2024, and 5 TB of storage in Nov 2024. Could be way more than that now.

You basically have to be a company to federate into the ATProto (Bluesky) ecosystem. You can’t just “stand up an instance”.

Lots of detail: https://dustycloud.org/blog/how-decentralized-is-bluesky/

(I know you’ve already realized that you were conflating Mastodon with Bluesky, I’m putting this here for others who come along so they can get the facts).