• 0 Posts
Joined 2Y ago
Cake day: Jul 10, 2020


One could consider to stop drinking coffee. Coffee itself has a rather large environmental impact as it is. Or drink it without milk-like substances.

Wow, I just took a look at a satelite map of that part of Vancouver. Holy hell… this is absolutely awful. Just houses and roads, almost no green, except for some trees that are captured in asphalt.

This is indeed awful. I thought these are houses with gardens around them. :(

Most people on Lemmy seem to think that this is just fine, because you can vote however you want, and as soon as you think that people should vote after a certain system or idea, you’re for some reason a Nazi.

If you mean the non-straight streets in the blocks: That’s how every road in Europe is made. This is not better for cars, this is better and nicer for humans. Cars are forced to drive slower that way.

Thanks for your comment! I agree with your view on growth through discussion.

Keep in mind nexusmods has a blanket ban on all US sociopolitic commentaries.

Interesting. I didn’t know that. Though, it may be difficult to decide what is a sociopolitic commentary, and what is not. As far as I can see, there are lots of mods that exchange the original flags of a game with LGBQT+ flags. I’m not arguing for the removal of those, but I fear some kind of double standard.

By the way: I think the mod that was banned was a troll attempt… and it succeeded. This was what the troll intended: Internet drama. If we would have just leave it be, and I think almost nobody is actually interested in that mod, it would have been a fairer and less troll feeding solution.

This isn’t a public service though.

I know. Maybe this was badly phrased on my side.

On the one extreme, you have tens of thousands of communities for a very narrow and small community. There, you can only talk about certain things, but not about other things.

On the other extreme, you have one community where everybody can talk about everything, and everyone can see what others write and comment.

Both are not okay, because it’s a good idea to prohibit content that is about harming human beings, like calls to violence. This is already covered by laws in most countries. I argue that this is a good thing. So according to the law, you can’t talk about literally everything on online forums.

Having the above in mind, I argue that it is best to have lesser numbers of communities, and have less narrow limits. That way, we can see what the people are thinking and saying, and we lessen the chance of creating filter bubbles.

I personally would rather want to see what people are thinking and saying, even when it is about things I disagree with. For example, I rather have a talk about capitalism, and why I think it is a bad idea and has problems, with someone who thinks it is a good idea. I wouldn’t like if that user is prohibited to talk about it.

I could also talk about this with people who already agree with me, but… you know? That’s not quite the same.

On one hand, everybody can 100% dictate what happens on their site. On the other hand, it would be nice if a public service would accept all kinds of ideas and thoughts without dictating anything.

Imagine you would be prohibited to talk about socialism for example, or post socialist memes. Would you be in favor of any instance forbidding this, so that you have to set up your own? Or would you rather have as many instances as possible allowing this kind of content?

Sounds rather odd to me that climate activists would go and poison soil based on who currently “owns” that plot of land, and based on what the owners are doing there.

Doesn’t this make the situation worse for the environment?

Interesting idea. How can you automatically decide who the intended users are? Maybe a mix of having the community subscribed, and having a certain amount of comments, or a certain amount of upvotes within that community?

What does “salting the greens” means? Surely not literally putting salt onto it. Or does it mean that?

What some people do is to vote based on the relationship with the author. Some people always downvote any comment by a person they hate. The opposite also exists.

I agree with everything you said. But for me, it’s an argument FOR trying to create an useful system for everyone, instead of not trying. We all would have benefits.

It doesn’t really matter whether you design a perfect system or not, if it doesn’t account for human behavior.

I agree. That’s why the system should account for that, which is the core of the reason for the system. It’s not something that should exist “despite” human behavior. It should exist because of it. For me, this is the reason for the system.

The best you can get is an approximation, and you have to understand that people will ultimately use the system differently than you expect or designed them to.

Some people will ignore the information. But if we come up with a good and clear user interface, and the rules are simple and actively encouraged and explained, then hopefully more and more people will use it - and create a benefit for everyone.

Reddit sadly didn’t do that - for their benefit, because they sell data, and gut reactions and one-liners are worth more than informed and well written discussion.

They could have done a way better job at communicating this idea via the user interface. The arrows suggest that the two voting options are opposites of each other, but according to the Reddiquette, they are not. Calculating the upvotes and downvotes to a simple number at a later time made it even worse. Originally, you had seperate counts for both vote options.

I could work, if you encourage the correct usage and educate your users about it. Also, a better user interface should communicate the intention and meaning.

If you ask me, if most users would use the system like that, it would be a very strong encouragement for everyone to participate in a quality discussion, writing well thought arguments and voting on who had done this, so everyone can see the comments with the highest merit at the top.

You don’t even have to agree with the user in order to vote the comment up. If someone writes up a very good argument for atomic energy, I should acknowledge that and feel encouraged to come up with an equally well written argument against it, ideally touching the topics the user used as arguments, and enriching the discussion.

It’s like a lot of things: It would be good if everyone would be doing that, but many don’t, so most give up… and here we are. I would really love if we would at least try.

It’s sadly the reality. The original Reddiquette is a really good idea, though. Encouraging well written arguments, and sorting them by quality, would help a lot of topics. Emotional gut reactions on the other hand are not really helping.

There is no meaning to the vote numbers here on Lemmy, yet they are used to rank comments and posts. Doesn’t make sense to me. Any metric that is the result of an unknown process shouldn’t be used to sort comments.

Example: The 5 star rating at Amazon. Imagine if everyone would use it however they see fit? Some use a 5 star rating for simply receiving a non-damaged product. Some use a 4 star rating for a broken product, but the return process was okay. Some use a 3 star rating for receiving a non-damaged product. Some use the stars to rate the movie, some to rate the visual quality of the release (which can differ), some because their language wasn’t included, some for the delivery, some for the packaging (which can differ), and so on.

As long as the people who feed the system use it for completely different reasons and by different rules, the resulting metric is… useless.

Mercator is a kind of a map projection. It can skew the visual representation of the actual size of a country. Northern/southern regions appear stretched, while equatorial regions appear comparatively smaller. For example, the continent Africa is way bigger than this map projection suggest. Also, the nothern parts of Russia are stretched, so Russia is smaller than it appears.

Still, Russia is 28 times bigger in actual square kilometers. 28 fucking times.

Thinking about this… if you know about the mercator projection (which the user at least now of, and what it means), I’m quite sure you’re not dumb enough to not realize that Russia is 28 times bigger. So, honestly… it’s 100% a troll.

Don’t feed the troll.

using the Mercator projection to argue how Russia is bigger than Ukraine.

Stopped reading right there. Either troll or idiot.

Yeah. Right. I see the troll game gets stronger and stronger on Lemmy. Good for you!

These bikes are yet another successful industrial campaign to get you to buy shit you don’t need. And the bike are fucking expensive. But what can you do? People are leaving their normal bikes for expensive special purpose bikes that are to be replaced by the next industrial campaign to sell you shit you don’t really need.

What you need is a good bike or ebike, and useful and well made additions like bicycle bags that are actually made to transport stuff. Those do exist, but sadly most bags on the market are stupid fancy shit that don’t even remotely use the capability they could. Or a well made trailer. You can pack a shit load on a trailer, and here’s the kicker: They have additional tyres and can be self-braking, and you can balance the load within the trailer.

The problem with these solutions: They are modular. And that means less sales, because you can reuse things you already have, and you can use one thing for multiple use cases. Corporations hate that. They want to sell you a full and non-modular solution for every imaginable use case, individually of course.

Companies couldn’t care less about that. The amount of money you take away from them this way is in absolutely no relation in comparison to what they take away from you.