Kalcifer @ Kalcifer @sh.itjust.works

All of this user's content is licensed under [CC BY 4.0](https://creativeco

---

Read more

Posts

67

Comments

1,020

Joined

2 yr. ago

[…] They might want it, but they don’t need it

For clarity, if admins do want (not necessarily need) the survey data, you would still oppose it? If so, why?

It could be done without having to clone all data though. Reddit is hosted by AWS and their data is distributed on multiple servers, so replace AWS by a bunch of people like you and me providing disk space for the data and tada, you can decentralized the database and just give people access to interacting with it directly (through code) or via various front-ends that people would create. […]

If I understand you correctly, there is an open issue for Lemmy for an, I think, similar idea of co-hosting communities.

[…] Admins don’t need demographic data at all.

What makes you so certain of that?

[…] It seems fairly likely that we will get a lot of junk data mixed in with the real data, making its usefulness questionable. […]

I am by no means an expert on the subject, but I presume that there are methods that can be employed to filter out bad-faith respondents.

[…] they’re always using the same credentials no matter the website they use and no matter the website they can interact with everything that ever happened on the servers, no one has the power to prevent users from seeing some of the transactions that happened (no admins) because the website they use are just a front used to simplify interaction with the servers. […]

Hm, IIUC, this is one of Bluesky's issues that the linked blog post was pointing out — if joining the network requires one to mirror all existing data, it makes it prohibitively expensive for anyone to spin up a server to join the network if the size of the network is enormous.

If things were decentralized in similar way to crypto it would be way better for user adoption.

IIUC, are you perhaps referring to something like Nostr?

🐻 "it's not. it's not. it's not. ..."

🐻 "it's not. it's not. it's not. ..."

🐻 "it's not. it's not. it's not. ..."

/j

What about a conditioner?

Yeah, potentially. I honestly just haven't taken a moment to research an appropriate product, yet. So, if you have any recommendations, I would appreciate them 😊

Oh damn, that's a lot of cross-posts. I didn't know this had already been posted so many times before.

Personally, I don't use shampoo. I find that scrubbing my head and hair using my hands while in the shower is more than sufficient to clean it. Personally, though, I do still want some hair product just for its perfume, though I haven't found a satisfactory product yet.

Isn't that for U.S. law? Given that the law in the post is a Canadian law, I think it would be better to have a Canada-specific source.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be outlining the paradox of tolerance.

[…] the fraud usually has to be something a reasonable person could believe. […]

Could you cite a source for that?

Imo, this is just an argument of definitions. For example, Merriam-Webster's definition doesn't require one to be paid in order for them to be called a journalist ^[1[2]]. Whether a one must be paid in order to call themself a chef, however, seems to depend on the definition of "proffesional" ^[3] and perhaps "profession" ^[4], neither of which explicitly require one to be paid ^[4][5].

I just don't follow what your point is. Could you elaborate?

The process we’re discussing isn’t about verifying the final article, it’s about verifying the source itself.

Okay, sure, but one can't verify a source if the source wasn't cited in the first place.

“A young man stole a car” “Man, 28 (link), steals car” “Man, 28 (link), of latino descent (link) commits crime in our town (link)”

Which of these is complying with your guidelines closest and which one is creating a more biased narrative?

That's a fair point.

[…] a problem that either doesn’t exist or doesn’t make up the bulk of the issue you’re trying to fix […]

Would you mind going into more depth about "the bulk of the issue you're trying to fix"? I would love to hear a counter opinion on what the true issue(s) may be.

genuinely great answer. […]

Thank you 😊

[…] thanks.

You're welcome 😊

source