• 1 Post
  • 32 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 26th, 2023

help-circle

  • Allright knuckleheads, here’s what you do:

    1. Follow people who’s content you’re interested in

    2. Browse Following and not For You

    3. That’s litterally it

    I get so peeved when people browse algorithmic feeds and then complain that they see bad content. You fools. You cretins. I’ll have you know that i actually have a pleasant experience on Twitter AND THAT’S NOT A JOKE, i genuinely have a good time on a bad website purely because i stay away from the For You feed. It’s literally that simple. The only time i get conservative propaganda is when someone i follow quote tweets it with a snarky response.

    I’ve had someone assume i was a nazi because i’m still on Twitter and i got a little (too) mad at them because we clearly don’t share the same reality. They browsed For You and quite rightfully left the site never to return, and they don’t understand how i’m able to stay; no shit, i’m able to stay because i don’t browse Following.

    Now the thing is, this is how i’ve always used the internet, from the start i’ve built my follows list with this browsing habit in mind so i only follow like 200 people with the specific purpose of seeing their content; but for a lot of users, following is more like pressing “like” on a profile, and they end up following 5000 accounts. In that case you’re gonna get way too much content sprayed at you and pruning your follows list is going to take forever. I don’t know what to do in that situation tbh



  • The best explanation i’ve seen is this:

    Places that put children under the authority of adults (schools, camps, etc) are appealing for child predators; but where most will kick them out when/if found, the Catholic Church makes it easier for them to stay in.

    This is because of a religious belief that God judges men for their sins, eventually rehabilitates them, and the job of mere mortals is to forgive and forget.

    I really like this explanation because it doesn’t flatter my atheist sentiment and provides a very neat and rational cause-and-effect relation, it’s a thing that’s specific about the Church compared to other institutions.

    Priests also take a vow of chastity, in people’s minds they’re supposed to be above sexual desire; and they have an extra aura of authority compared to the average teacher or summer camp instructor. Both of these things makes it harder for children and parents to question them.

    And once they do question them, the Church gets a similar behavior to other institutions where they’ll try to protect their reputation by burying the case. I’m not sure which positions are supposed to be held for life, i assume most of them, and so that makes firing someone (or whatever the right word is in this context) a bigger deal.

    Thems my attempted explanations


  • You’re coming at this from the design and community aspect. I don’t think Lemmy makes significant improvements over Reddit on those fronts, it’s designed the same, has the same benefits and drawbacks. As of right now the small size of the community makes it lacking in diversity and impractical for niche interests (aside from tech-related ones).

    My case for Lemmy being better is a business case: Reddit was a for-profit company backed by venture capital, and is now publicly traded. They are extremely susceptible to enshittification, and are in fact already deep in that process.

    Meanwhile, Lemmy is an open source software that enables users to host their own social media. It’s not even a business at all, i’m not even sure if the developer (LemmyNet) is a business or a person or some other legal entity.

    Fediverse social medias (Lemmy, Mastodon) are structurally resilient to the enshittification that we’re seeing from corporate social medias, and i like that a lot.



  • So let me get this straight: they cut down the forest, plant palm trees, harvest it for i guess a few years, and then… plant the forest back? How does that make sense just on any level?

    I mean at least i happen to know it doesn’t make sense on an ecological level as a new groth forest is massively different from an old growth forest, so the new forest is no replacement for the old one.

    Also i’m not sure if you understand what an argument from ignorance is? It’s not an ignorant argument, it’s a specific type of logical fallacy. The observation that no extractive industry has proven sustainable is a predictor that they’re unlikely to prove sustainable in the future.





  • I have all of the Billboard Top 100’s for every year from 1950 to 2009. When i downloaded it i thought that litterally every popular song i’ve heard of would be on there.

    Not only are there a lot missing, there’s so so much crap. It turns out bland generic love ballads have sold really well throughout the decades, and genuinely memorable songs are a lot fewer than 100 a year. Not even to mention all the ones that don’t chart. Sure 1957 had Elvis’s Jailhouse Rock, but you know what else it had? Elvis’s Loving You, Elvis’s Love Me, and Jerry Lewis’s “Rock-a-Bye Your Baby with a Dixie Melody”. Cool. Thanks for that, Billboard.

    Overall there’s a tremendous survivorhip bias. By definition we only remember the memorable songs, which gives the illusion that everything was memorable.

    But also, having grown up in the 2000’s, i really think it’s one of the worst decades for music. So much so that i was into 60’s rock back then, and in the 2010’s i was into the new wave of thrash metal, literally one of the most regressive genres there are. I wasn’t alive for the 80’s, i didn’t like the video games or the movies and didn’t participate in virtually any of the 80’s nostalgia that was trendy at the time, but i did prefer the music to anything my current decade had to offer.