Exactly this. It's often about finding the right balance between technically optimal, and socially feasible (lacking the right phrase here).
The nerds brimming with technical expertise often neglect the second point.
Oh - wow! I was about to complain about how https://join-lemmy.org/ is a shining bad example in this regard, talking about server stuff right away and hiding how Lemmy actually looks until page 3, but apparently they changed that and improved it drastically. Cool, good job!
Anyways.
For collaborative projects especially, it is important to strike a balance between tech and social aspects. Making poor tech choices will put people off. But making your project less accessible will also result in less people joining. It's crucial to find a good balance here. For many coming from the tech side, this usually means making far more concessions to the social side than intuitively feels right.
Arguments can be made either way which decision is at their people's expense.
So I understand your area/bubble never favored "no negotiation", but then I'm not talking about your area/bubble. My question was about the change in attitude.
Has the general consensus changed about how to deal with hostage takers? I think it was "don't negotiate with terrorists" not long ago. Very tough for the relatives, but meant to prevent more harm in the future, by spoiling the plans of the terrorists.
When reading reports and comments about the Israeli hostages in Gaza, I get a different impression. Why is that, what is different? \
Are there no concerns for encouraging more hostage taking this time?
An attempt to reconcile both views by comparing it to a structural collapse of, let's say, a bridge.
In the end, it collapses. Before that, the cracks begin to show. Before that, invisible micro-cracks form. Before that, pressure exceeds limits.
Now, at which point in this story does "collapse happen"? Some use this to refer to the actual collapse, after the cracks began to show.
But since collapse is inevitable after too many micro-cracks have formed (or maybe even earlier, since those are already symptoms of an underlying cause), some refer to this long, unspectacular build-up phase as "collapse happens".
I'm neither an economist nor a civil engineer. Bridges are complex, economies even more so. I still think these two views explain how the same term can refer to different things, or different phases of the same thing.
I find the plateau quite puzzling (lemmy.world, but the total looks very similar):
There was quite a steep increase, and then it suddenly stopped.
I would rather expect it to slow down, than to stop that abruptly.
We're looking at a fairly large group of people making a decision to create an account on Lemmy. There are plenty of reasons to expect it to be fuzzy. Even if they all responded to one particular event in time, some would have done so immediately, others the next day, few more even later.
Reddit was using karma for a long time and people stayed. The exodus happened when reddit announced charging for using their API, and everything that came along. Karma was no significant part of that story.
When people “farm” for fake internet pointe by appealing to the oppinions of everyone else it leads to people just expressing one “right” (popular) oppinion.
We have the same result already, for several reasons. One is, we do have karma within threads.
Another is, people will get backlash for voicing the "wrong" opinion even if there is no point system. People happily reply to correct someone.
Adding a comment so people can experiment more in this thread.