Spzi @ Spzi @lemm.ee

Posts

11

Comments

641

Joined

2 yr. ago

I was trying to address a point that is frequently raised by people that gave Lemmy a try but are not planning to stay: seeing the same content posted across a few similar communities hinders content discovery, and just provides a worse browsing experience than centralized solutions like Reddit.

Not trying to be mean, but ... you're making a post about redundancy because other people make posts about redundancy? :D

In these other posts, a frequent answer is: Reddit isn't that much different. A popular example is /r/gaming or /r/games or whatever. Apparently there are multiple subs for the same topic, sometimes with little to no differences.

Then some people object "but that's not the same, they have different names", to which others reply "on lemmy, the full name includes the instance, so we don't have same name communities here, either".

I think, bottom line, the two platforms aren't very different in this regard. On both, users can create new subs/comms even if the exact same content already exists. And they do. Sometimes both survive, sometimes not. On both, users decide "with their feet".

One relevant difference might be that in the Fediverse, redundancy actually has value. It protects against defederation, unstable servers, servers disappearing.

I still see value in combining duplicates. When I see a new community popping up, and I know a very similar thing already exists, I might leave a note in the new community wether they might want to participate in the other community instead. Just in case they were not aware it exists.

But aside from the Fediverse-specific reasons for duplicates, there are additional general reasons, which is why we see the same phenomenon on reddit. For example, people might dislike the moderation in the 'original'. Or one might allow bots, the other not.

While this is my point of view ("it's a non-issue"), I also note it's a topic which is frequently brought up. Apparently, it's frequently seen as an issue. This may be rooted in perception (including the fact that reddit is monolithic, falsly leading to the misconception it would only have one sub for one topic, all while it still has plenty of redundant duplicates) and communication (I got the feeling the fediverse's federated structure is sometimes over-emphasized and creates more worries than necessary).

We probably will get technical solutions like grouping on a user-view level. Maybe some apps already have that. GitHub issues exist.

Aside from technical solutions, people can vote with their feet. It is of course perfectly fine to address and re-address the topic. This might help consolidate similar communities. Personally, I think having a few redundant communities is healthy for the nature of the fediverse.

I'm subscribed to four communities named "fediverse@"something. Yes, it's a bit annoying. But it's also good to have backups, in the sense that I never know which instance might defederate from my own or from others who also use these communities.

Not sure what the point of this post is. Do you want people to vote on which to keep, and which to discard? They already do that. People subscribe and unsubscribe, post or don't, as they please. Apparently, we continuously vote on having four (probably even more) redundant communities.

I like this idea, but I also studied computer science. From a user's perspective, I think we can and should dumb it down further:

Automatically choose one instance for new users. With a sophisticated algorithm or simply pick one at random, I don't care.

And most users probably won't care either. If they do, they can migrate to another instance. At that point, they know better what this is all about and can make an informed decision.

We trade the worries and time spent by new users trying to understand the system and their needs, against the worries and time spent by more experienced users which instance they might like better.

Seriously, would it be possible to integrate Lemmy Handshake into Lemmy source code?

I feel this should be part of the core package.

Are you joking? Pick any source you want, the numbers don't change much.

Both https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?locations=CA and https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/canada#per-capita-how-much-co2-does-the-average-person-emit see Canada at around 16 tons/year/capita, in line with Wikipedia.

The Canadian government itself puts an even higher number on it:

In 2019, Canada was the highest GHG emitting country per capita among the top 10 emitting countries with 19.6 t CO2 eq

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html

If you want to argue with this, can you support your opinion with any source?

I'm not sure how the developer's intention or leaning affects me. Or how my usage or non-usage affects their intention or leaning, or how they can act on it. Maybe my usage provides data for them to improve their tools? But since the tools themselves are agnostic, I'm not sure how that's a bad thing either.

if there’s a good alternative with no such controversies

Strictly speaking about functionality, I saw no alternative which is on par to the .agency tool. It has more features, is faster, provides more information and causes less strain on network servers. At least that's my quick impression.

Anyways, thanks for the conversation!

It’s made by kiwifarms though

I didn't know, thanks for letting me know. I frankly do not care though, in the exact same way that I do not care that Lemmy is made by tankies.

The interesting bit would be how people with these extreme agencies abuse these tools or their users to further their goals.

As I see it, both cases are questionable people providing useful tools free for me to use. Wether I use these tools or not, has what impact in regards to their agenda? I certainly would not like to be a pawn in their game, or support their cause without consent.

If you think that's what happens, please show me. That would be very interesting to know and might lead to me ceasing usage / recommendation.

Thanks, bookmarked!

Just linking a similar tool because I haven't seen it being mentioned yet: https://fba.ryona.agency/

twist the words of every comment you’re responding to everywhere in this thread, until people loose interest

Can confirm, this happened to me.

1. WTH has America to do with this? Thanks for spelling it out.
2. They simply ignored the concerns I raised about the vote manipulation, pretending manipulation could only occur at the event itself, not in preparation (which was my entire point).

There is no way to argue with you in good faith.

It's still worthwhile to address bad arguments. While you might not change the mind of the person you're directly responding to, there are likely people in the audience who are on the fence. Offering alternative perspectives and sound reasoning can help them make up their mind. Maybe it becomes clearer if we imagine the absence of counterspeech. That situation can make a far-fetched view appear as if it was without alternatives, as if it was sound and normal. Which makes it more likely to be accepted.

I'm not sure wether it matters who has the last word.

I agree to pretty much all the previous answer (text >>>> video), just adding what's missing from my point of view:

Video can be fun. As irrelevant as this might seem at first, motivation is an important part of every learning process. If you can make the information easier to digest for some people, it can make their learning progress more efficient and effective.

"Being fun" can relate to literal jokes (which I like much less in text documentation), presentation style, atmosphere. It can also help to address more sensory modalities to support learning (like audio, colors, or sometimes people just like having a face explain things to them).

I also feel I need to focus much less to follow a video than I need to digest a technical documentation in text form. Yes, I might spend more time on the video to achieve the same understanding, but I can consume it in more situations. For example, when tired before going to bed, or while eating, I might still watch a video about something I'd like to learn, but rather not scroll through the corresponding docs.

Ideally, videos would be additional to clearly structured and comprehensive text docs. But as much as consumers are people, producers are, too. If they happen to prefer video for whatever reason, and don't have the resources to do both, video is what you get.

Let's assume a peace is negotiated, in which each party assures it respects the aggreed-upon borders. Similar to the Budapest Memorandum, signed and broken by Russia. How could Ukraine trust them this time?

I’d support a UN monitored vote in the Donbass region and Crimea (and any other contested area) on whether they want to join Russia or stay with Ukraine.

That sounds good at first glance. But given Russia has the opportunity to persecute any opposition in the contested areas, and bring in loyal settlers, the results are likely skewed even if the vote itself is fair and transparent.

Fundamentally, I still don't understand why one should negotiate with a burglar how much they get to keep.

the fires were started due to climate change?

Interesting academic question. Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that these specific fires were not.

It's still an uncontroversial insight that events like these will occur more often, and become more severe, as a consequence of climate change.

So even if this particular event was not caused by climate change (or if a causal link cannot be shown beyond doubt), it still serves as a taste for things to come.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildfire#Climate_change_effects

Canada is already 80%+ green. Far higher than any other country its size.

And has still one of the highest emissions per capita worldwide, if we ignore insignificant countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

Yes, some provinces are almost completely green (if we only consider electricity, disregarding primary energy for transportation and heating), but apparently Canada more than makes up for this with other provinces, emitting so much that overall it still comes out as a top polluter for it's weight.

Forcibly taking land from a group of people who did nothing wrong to give it to another group of people is not OK, full stop.

Yes, obviously.

the nation of Israel and the Jewish people are two different things.

Yes.

Anyone who claims that their religion needs its own nation is not doing so in service of the religion or it’s people, they are fighting for their own political power.

I feel that's a bit too simplistic. 'Jewish people' can refer to religion, but also to culture, or descent. Neither of which have to overlap. Most importantly, it does not really matter how the individual identifies themselves to get into trouble for 'being jewish', but what others project onto this for their own political power.

I'd be happy to cease this point and agree there is no necessity if we have, say, 200 years of no persecution. I agree it should be possible to live in multi-cultural peace without distinct nations, but I also recognize it wasn't the case in the past. And I'm afraid it still isn't the case in the present in many places.

Now we're talking.

I don’t agree with the “they don’t have a home so it’s ok that we took someone else’s and gave it to them” stance you seem to have.

Yes, me neither. Glad we could clear this up. Personally, my favorite way forward after WW2 would have been to give them Bavaria, although this would have entailed other problems. Either way, we cannot reverse history and I think it's important for the Jews to have their own nation. No, that's not a free pass for things like this article.

The compensation for persecution shouldn’t be allowing the victims to persecute others

Obviously agreed. I think I already made that clear. But since we had this misunderstanding, it apparently was not so clear. So thanks for bringing it up, and using a few more words on it.

In the sense that I talked about Israel and no other particular nation, yes.

Not in the sense which you probably mean though. I even said "many other peoples still don’t have that" (safe retreat), which fits Palestine. Of course Palestinians, being humans, have the same basic human rights which I mentioned.

I'm not an expert in these things. I felt it would be impossible for me to give a nuanced take on all the important sides of the conflict. So I didn't even try, but still responded to the questions which were about Israel, likewise addressing Israel specifically.

I feel your edgy take kind of ignores the essence of my comment. I'd appreciate more balanced responses. Let's not react to unecessary hate and violence with a comment section which does exactly that.

the world is supporting Israel because?

Because historically, it was a disaster for Jews to not have their own nation, but be a (n often persecuted) minority in other countries.

Or it still is to this day, but now they have at least one more or less safe retreat on Earth. Yes, many other peoples still don't have that.

It’s okay because

No! Police violence and abuse are NOT okay. Saying this as an atheist, anti-religious, anti-fascist from Germany.

We can and should condemn the atrocious misbehavior of the police, while still supporting the right of the Israeli nation to exist, which is tied to the basic human right of Jewish people to live.

Under an image of a swimmer surrounded by jellyfish, it reads: “Open beach. Not to jellyfish or foreigners.”

Another, this one apparently related to a rockfall, points out that there is no landslide but that the danger is due to overcrowding.

So there were a couple of thoughts in my comment, a few perspectives and nuances. You singled out one (or actually rather projected) which suits your view which you don't want to change. There were many other ways to engage in a constructive way, which you evaded.

By your logic, don't you need therapy now? Evasion bad, right?