And if you actually read the Wikipedia article you linked:

The work of Elinor Ostrom, who received the Nobel Prize in Economics is seen by some economists as having refuted Hardin's claims.[1] Hardin's views on over-population have been criticised as simplistic[2] and racist. [3]

...

Hardin's work is criticised as historically inaccurate in failing to account for the demographic transition,[191] and for failing to distinguish between common property and open access resources.[192][193] Environmentalist Derrick Jensen claims the tragedy of the commons is used as propaganda for private ownership.[194][195] He says it has been used by the political right wing to hasten the final enclosure of the "common resources" of third world and indigenous people worldwide, as a part of the Washington Consensus.[196]

...

Other criticisms have focused on Hardin's racist and eugenicist views, claiming that his arguments are directed towards forcible population control, particularly for people of color.[210][211]

The "tragedy of the commons" is one of those things that's very Intuitive, but doesn't actually hold up to much scrutiny.

You mean far-right groups like Israeli officials = Zionists = genocidal terrorists?

And there's only one species of wild cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Get out of here with that "broccoli", "kale", "cabbage" or "brussel sprouts" nonsense!

The first of several coronavirus mass outbreaks (CMEs), described as plasma and magnetic field discharges from the sun, was later raised by the NOAA to be an “extreme” geomagnetic storm.

Lmao, talk about shitty journalism. You should probably look at getting better sources...

You might reconsider based on which one has more ability/incentive to affect you

Fingers crossed this stuff galvanizes people to realize that voting is, at best, a temporary stopgap and they will need to be a bit more active in the whole political process. What happened to the riots that were promised if Roe vs. Wade was overturned? When the Democrats fall in lockstep with the far right extremists how will you hold them accountable?

Though this'd also likely lead to far right extremists ramping up their violence as they feel themselves losing power.

That is what overturning Roe vs. Wade is about. The parent article is a story of far right extremists ramping up their violence as American empire loses power. Is your plan to vote that away? It hasn't worked for the last 40+ years.

✓ Open source generative AI

✓ Disney model

✓ Federated

Mock away :D

Starts the rant with "We are being lied to." Proceeds to regurgitate capitalistic propaganda and bad assumptions which are easily disproved...

"the total human population may already be shrinking." It's not, and it's a trivial thing to check.

"Productivity growth, powered by technology, is the main driver of economic growth, wage growth, and the creation of new industries and new jobs." There was correlation between those things... Until 1979.

Ignoring the usual anarcho-capitalist drivel in the "markets" section I think the most damning line is "We believe markets are generative, not exploitative; positive sum, not zero sum... Markets are the ultimate infinite game."

Shows a complete lack of understanding of basic economic theory. In a theoretical "market economy" markets exist as a means to distribute a limited supply of goods which by definition makes it a zero sum. Calling it an "infinite game" is insanity considering the context the author is quoting was demonstrating that each transaction is a finite game. An infinite set of finite games does not change the inherit nature of the game.

For my sanity I'm going to stop there, but hopefully provide some additional insight on how poorly researched and paper thin this manifesto is and save the next person some time.

That's the point...

1. Shelter is critical to survival. The general rule of thumb places it as a higher priority than food or water. Arguing against people having access to reliable shelter, regardless the rational, is arguing for deliberately killing them.

2. The "they're defective and will destroy whatever they live. Don't let them in!!!" is just calling them cockroaches in a different way. It's fear mongering nonsense and there is no evidence to support that claim.

3. You're assuming correlation does not equal causation. It turns out being homeless, even for a relatively short period of time, is devastating to mental health and even if not the root cause (IE genetic predeposition, TBIs, etc.) it can strongly exasperate them and create some nasty co-morbidities.

Being repeatedly assulted and or raided by police, neighborhood vigilantes and other desperate people is an extremely quick path towards PTSD/other general anxiety disorders. The aggressive de-humunization that occurs can be a potent factor in antisocial disorders. Direct health impacts like physical battery, hypo/hyperthermia, illness, etc. can cause more detect brain damage such as TBIs, etc. Schizophrenia is usually fairly treatable, schizophrenia with PTSD amplified paranoia much less so.

There's a specific model for stable diffusion called riffusion that does an okay job. If you want to play with it I recommend downloading the automatic 1111 client and installing it from the "plugins" tab.

People are capable of more than 1 emotion at a time and that doesn't make any other emotions invalid and it certainly doesn't make any of the other possible ones people may feel or express "immoral".

Yes, someone is dead. They were flawed, but so is everyone and their passing is a tragedy to those close to them. Sadness, mourning, and empathy for those who will be most affected by his passing is a valid emotion.

Ryan actively chose a profession dedicated to inflicting violence upon those around them including the deaths of many others. Relief that he is no longer able to cause harm is a valid emotion.

Ryan was unable to stop causing harm to others on his own volition. He likely did it with the best of intentions, but through a steady diet of misinformation and lies he was conned into acting as a violent enforcer of capital. Frustration that this is what it took to prevent him from inflicting further harm is a valid emotion.

The empathy you are demanding with "it's bad when people get killed" is the same moralistic argument that "it's good when killing is avoided". Celebration that Ryan will no longer be causing the deaths of others is a valid (and morally equivalent) emotion.

Etc.

In short: It's a good platitude, but it's a poor moralistic argument, and is a narrow-minded viewpoint. Lemmy isn't the problem, your lack of empathy for those outside of Ryan's direct social circle is.