the_last_pigeon
shiggy
it's look who it is
User ID: 62
the_last_pigeon
shiggy
1yr ago
Would you like to work together to improve that article? I would enjoy seeing a "bunch of admins" get in the way. Let's start a new post for it, though. I hope our overlords would be OK with that, as it is sort of culture-war.
the_last_pigeon
shiggy
4mo ago
OK, so explain how overprovisioning and geosynchronicity were not correctly analyzed in the discussion. "It's wrong but I'm not telling you how" doesn't give me anything to work with.
In that case, existing protections against rape in general should be enough. It shouldn't be difficult for the guards to observe creepy behavior leading up to any incident, for example. If the guards fail to prevent rape by a trans woman, then they would've failed to prevent any other sort of abuse between inmates. I continue to not see a problem with trans rights here.
Also, I don't think this is a problem, statistically speaking. I currently think every other possible sex offense that could go on in a prison is way ahead of this one in frequency. I would be interested in seeing some numbers on this. I am aware of some news articles on the topic, but see Man bites dog:
The phrase man bites dog is a shortened version of an aphorism in journalism that describes how an unusual, infrequent event (such as a man biting a dog) is more likely to be reported as news than an ordinary, everyday occurrence with similar consequences, such as a dog biting a man.
the_last_pigeon
shiggy
1yr ago
All official efforts to combat it? It seems pretty straightforward that it would be nice to be emitting less greenhouse gases, and by and large I'm seeing pretty good progress and ideas focused on that goal, among others.
the_last_pigeon
shiggy
1yr ago
Any updates on the volunteer data? "Who knows" is perfectly acceptable, but I'm just very curious about it. I think it's a neat experiment and would like to see this on other websites.
the_last_pigeon
shiggy
1yr ago
A "truly free speech platform" is one of the most-tried ideas on the Internet and it ends the same way every time. To pull it off, you'd need to know at least a little bit about social dynamics and moderation, which Elon isn't doing a good job of demonstrating.
the_last_pigeon
shiggy
1yr ago
Yes. As a troll, your goal is others' reactions, which there are simply more of on English twitter.
I don't browse non-English twitter, but I think Elon's gonna cut non-English moderation staff even faster than he cuts English staff. Only a matter of time.
(1) Yes, there are a steady stream of problems addressable by automation, but those have never been a problem. SREs exist for the other problems.
Shit just falls over and you won't know why. That's just how these systems are. You can make a system that doesn't do that, but then you pay thousands of dollars per line written, which they're obviously not gonna do.
To put meat on the bones, see this list of common things SREs deal with, or this log of the SRE chatroom for Wikipedia & friends.
(2) Change is unavoidable and constant. There are security patches for your dependencies released continuously and you will update your system or face the consequences. Often times your dependency is an underfunded open-source thingy, despite your best efforts to avoid those, and thus the only way to get the new code is to use the newest version of the thingy, which means you might have to upgrade all of your code that uses the thingy.
(3) Regarding "pushing the systems back into a stable state" - then you're gonna have the same problem again unless you fix the root cause, which, again, requires code changes.
Supporting Stalin, Mao, or Che would be a ban on sight from any site I moderate, and a lot of my local (one-hop federating) Mastodon instances also ban tankies on sight. Unfortunately there are a lot of idiots that support that stuff out there. But, like, fair example.
I wrote a response to this idea as a top-level post above: https://www.themotte.org/post/181/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/32443?context=8#context. To summarize, I disagree that he has a chance at turning around Twitter.
the_last_pigeon
shiggy
1yr ago
Anyone got sources that present GamerGate from the "it was about ethics in video game journalism" angle?
the_last_pigeon
shiggy
1yr ago
I would be happy to specifically nix CNN talk shows in the same way that we already nix Fox talk shows and all opinion content in any medium (see WP:NEWSOPED, WP:NOROPED - parse, respectively as "NEWS section on OP-EDs" and "No Original Research section on OP-EDs").
For the other two, headlines have been banned for a while (WP:HEADLINE), and I'd imagine the bodies are more careful with their claims.
I would, in fact, love to see a list of claims for your preferred left-wing source (assuming the left-wing source is marked "generally reliable" on the big list). I'm sure one has been compiled somewhere already, but not in any of the few discussions on left-wing sources I spot-checked.
the_last_pigeon
shiggy
1yr ago
That discussion ended in your desired outcome with the contested sentence being removed. The current text of the article (can't bother to check how long it's been there, but this is the tool you would use for that):
In filings made with the SEC in March 2018, Gab stated that its target market is "conservative, libertarian, nationalists, and populist internet users around the world" "who are seeking alternative news media platforms like Breitbart.com, DrudgeReport.com, Infowars.com".
See the full list of sources. Not only are all right-wing sources not listed fair game (even politically biased sources are explicitly allowed, see WP:PARTISAN), non-left-wing sources on that list listed as "generally reliable" include Reason, the WSJ, Deseret News, Financial Times, and Religion News Service. Non-left-wing sources listed as "no consensus", meaning they're usable based on context, include The Washington Times, The American Conservative, Washington Examiner, the Cato Institute, and National Review.
Knowingly using sources that are lying is straightforwardly stupid and I'd hope that both (1) no actual Wikipedia policy can be construed that way, and (2) no discussion has concluded that way. What you linked is an unofficial and unsanctioned interpretation of policy. From the box at the top:
This is an essay.... This page is not... one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
I suppose that's on us, for bad signage. I'll certainly never argue that we're good at user interfaces :)
That said, a common criticism of Wikipedia is how it relies on existing sources rather than "the truth". This is an entirely valid criticism. It is a correct interpretation of policy that, as your essay says, Wikipedia would have advocated for a geocentric universe if it had existed back in the days when that was the mainstream viewpoint. In a sense, that's how it has to be. People fighting over truth itself doesn't make for a good encyclopedia, because verification of the results is many times harder.
the_last_pigeon
shiggy
1yr ago
-
Various imageboards. There are a ton. There are a group of federated imageboards indexed here that I don't browse but could be fun. Can't say much for the quality of discussion. I'm on /a/ and occasionally /n/. It's fun if you tune out ~80% of the stuff. Also the idea behind https://iro2.net/ has potential but the people are sorta trashy. At least you can quote in purple by putting the < the other way.
-
IRC. See https://old.reddit.com/r/irc/comments/wipxz1/support_established_networks/.
-
Private Discord servers. Just lurk /a/ for long enough.
-
A couple of pretty active forums for special interests of mine: https://forums.puri.sm/ and https://www.chiefdelphi.com/.
-
Hacker News and Lobsters. Although if anyone knows of smaller similar sites, let me know.
the_last_pigeon
shiggy
1yr ago
Yeah, the pipeline's going to be tricky.
I support crosslinking. Prior art for that would be the weird "imageboard federation" of ~2019 involving, say, https://trashchan.xyz/boards.html (sorry for blowing up the spot?). We could try finding friendly Lemmy instances, although that might be tough.
The Vault is good. Maybe it should come with a cover page linking directly to some of the more accessible/popular ones?
We could try more traditional things like having events or competitions, or other easy on-ramps into the community. That would pair with analyzing existing larger communities we could advertise in. Just like (he said, perhaps descending into self-parody) some scientist once said there's a farmer somewhere in Africa who would do his job twice as well, there are definitely people on Facebook (or even more cursed and corporate venues, like the clocksite) who have no idea any of this exists but would be better contributors and participants than me. The fun part is getting them here.
I appreciate the forecast and explanation. I disagree with removing votes, but only weakly. Votes reflect (among other things, and poorly) the effort level of a post, and thus showing higher-voted comments first improves the reading experience of the site. Votes aren't necessary for an echo chamber: ideological conformity can be enforced with social pressure (by getting lots of disagreeing replies). Without votes, we'd rely on mods more heavily to police low-effort comments. (Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, I suppose. Informally, most votes on the current CW thread look like the sort of votes you're trying to avoid.)
Other sites have various technical bodges that I hope might suffice instead of removing votes entirely. Hacker News and Lobste.rs require a fair amount of karma (500 for HN) to unlock downvotes, and Lobste.rs requires reasons to be selected from a menu for downvotes on posts. Furthermore, HN prevents you from downvoting direct replies to your comments or comments more than 24 hours old, and has a minimum score of -4 (beyond which downvotes don't change the score). Slashdot's M2 system offers a different route, perhaps one far too baroque for current Internet users. For an even wilder idea, maybe we could cap comment scores at +1/-1, and have all scores start at 0? Anyway, I think, but can't justify, that voting and tree structure go hand-in-hand, and I worry about removing one but not the other.
the_last_pigeon
shiggy
1yr ago
As others have said, if Uber solves self-driving, that would also deliver most of the benefits of this proposal. Beyond that, you're putting roads in tunnels to use the surface more efficiently, which makes economic sense in some cases but not always.
There's the capacity thing too. I did some pencil math. The best subway lines in NYC run every three minutes. Each train carries about 1500 people, making it 30k people per hour. Meanwhile, the average highway carries 2000 cars per hour per lane. Assuming 1.2 people per car, you'd need 30k/(1.2*2000) = 12.5 lanes for the same capacity. (Did a little searching, most sources end up at about 10-15 for the number of lanes.) There's no room for 12.5 extra lanes under the streets of Manhattan, nor would any city planner opt for them unless the surface was extremely valuable.
The Vice President of the Confederate States of America (via Wikipedia):
Our new government['s]...foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
Historian William C. Davis (Look Away pp. 97-98 via Wikipedia):
To the old Union they had said that the Federal power had no authority to interfere with slavery issues in a state. To their new nation they would declare that the state had no power to interfere with a federal protection of slavery. Of all the many testimonials to the fact that slavery, and not states' rights, really lay at the heart of their movement, this was the most eloquent of all.
I won't tell you Northerners fought "to free slaves" because that's as obviously wrong to me as it is to you. It's easy to reconcile the seeming inconsistency in Mr. Lincoln's thinking: the South seceded to preserve slavery, and the North took up arms in reaction. Perhaps the North didn't care about slavery, but that doesn't matter in evaluating the South's cause.
the_last_pigeon
shiggy
9mo ago
So, fun fact, I have it through the grapevine that the actual reason was they were WHALING on the damn thing the night before the demo, and that weakened it enough that the next substantial hit - the demo - was enough to break it. Of course I have no way of personally confirming any of that but I trust the person who told me.
the_last_pigeon
shiggy
1yr ago
Women are available and vulnerable basically everywhere. Trans women wanting to be in women's spaces axiomatically follows from them being trans women. This is insufficient fodder for an argument against trans rights.
the_last_pigeon
shiggy
1yr ago
Re people abusing self-ID, see answer downthread, which I shall copy-and-paste for convenience (please reply there):
In that case, existing protections against rape in general should be enough. It shouldn't be difficult for the guards to observe creepy behavior leading up to any incident, for example. If the guards fail to prevent rape by a trans woman, then they would've failed to prevent any other sort of abuse between inmates. I continue to not see a problem with trans rights here.
Re guards, I find it straightforward that rapists foster rape culture, and non-rapists foster less rape culture. You might even get excellent RNG and get a guard who actively works against rape culture, but maybe that's a bit too much to ask for.
Re solitary, I did not intend that meaning: I just mean put all the sex criminals with each other. Yes, solitary confinement is pretty bad and should be avoided when possible.
the_last_pigeon
shiggy
1yr ago
Preliminary: I'm assuming (this being a gender discussion) that by "options other than traditional families", you mean gay/lesbian/trans parents, not single-parent households, which are obviously fucked.
Trans parents may be at higher risk of suicide, but that's covered by "let's not have parents who are suicide risks", and not related to them being trans specifically.
So we're left with "gay/lesbian/trans-not-a-suicide-risk parents". I claim they're just as fine. I offer two citations from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_parenting&oldid=1126262442#Research: this Australian Psychological Society literature review that cites a shitload of papers, and this amici in Obergefell. I find it unlikely that all of the papers cited therein are shit, but happy to spot-check a few.
Anyway, you also say the stigma is justified due to them being annoying. I am unaware of any ethical system that supports stigmatizing people because you find them annoying. Stigmatizing someone clearly does them more harm than any amount of "whining" could balance out. What's wrong with stigmatizing whining itself? Whining is pretty annoying. Also, you don't have to listen to them!
Moreover, I concur with @drmanhattan16 that you have no evidence that they have to whine. It is not an analytic truth. So, you have to demonstrate that there's something innate to the collective existence of non-traditional families that creates whining. I can't see any. But that's besides the point, because I've already established that whining isn't severe enough to justify stigmatizing them.
Time and effort estimate: not gonna sugarcoat it, probably high. Kiwi Farms is probably the single worst possible article to do this sort of experiment on, because it's on perhaps the single most poisoned and low-trust topic area on the website. Every Kiwi Farms user (dunno the demonym, don't care) from here to Sunday has probably had a go at the article at some point. I'm gonna say the best time to work on this article is not now. Maybe in a year. Happy to stick to the relatively calm (ha, ha) waters of American politics.
More options
Context Copy link