As others have pointed out, this is just a natural-- and arguably desirable-- consequence of federation with a reddit-style format. However, I think the problem it causes could be somewhat mitigated by each platform implementing a feature to allow users to group magazines/communities manually-- and share them between instances and (ideally) platforms. Kind of like how Twitter did with "lists". (I think that's what they called them.)
Yes, there needs to be a glossary somewhere to get people up to speed, or some kind of on-boarding process. It's also plausible that some of the naming conventions are from translation weirdness, and, as you say, backend Activitypub naming conventions that frontend users don't normally see.
I made a magazine (aka a community, aka a sub[reddit]) specifically so I could play around with kbin to figure things out. Right now, trial and error is all we have, as I imagine all the devs are more busy with more technical issues than naming conventions.
This line of attack against LLMs seems just foolish. The data was put into the public for public consumption. There is no right to control whether the data is used to train something; that's just something people are making up.
Okay, hear me out. Someone make a gold-farming bot on reddit, and take that money and donate to some lemmy/kbin instance. I think we found a way to fund lemmy/kbin! Reddit will do it for us!
I don't know who you think you're kidding. Are you really suggesting that there's more than enough food for the homeless population in Houston? Does that seem like even a plausible scenario?
I applaud their efforts to get homeless people into homes-- that is the only way to combat homelessness, but there doesn't seem to be any defense in preventing organizations from donating food to the homeless that aren't in homes yet.
I was going to type out a reasonable (I thought) counter argument, but I keep forgetting that this money isn't given to all children, just ones with disability. I wouldn't have any issue if the money was used to support the child specific directly, but putting it in a general fund is a bridge too far, for me.
I don't know/understand/see why there is this $2k limit in general, but I think the very least that could happen would be to add an exception for people in foster care to allow them to save up either a higher amount, or all of it.
Pike didn’t know it was probably her Social Security funds, or that the benefits would stop coming if she didn’t spend them. Children who qualify because of a disability are unable to save up the 10 percent that is kept for them because they only remain eligible for Social Security benefits if they have less than $2,000 in assets.
I'm a little confused with the information in the story; maybe someone reading this has some expertise in the field that can help clarify?
From the article, the benefits would have stopped coming once the kid has more than $2,000 in assets. Wouldn't that mean that the best case scenario is that a kid would have $2k waiting for them when they age out? (and "best case also means they have $0 in assets, which isn't really so "best case" if you ask me)
The article frames in in a way that makes it seem like the kids would have $10k+ waiting for them, but if they just set aside the money for the kid, it would cap out at $2k, right?
I'm also not sure why it's framed as "setting aside" the money. Is there a reason the money wouldn't be sent to the kid directly, as it comes in, as I imagine it was intended?
What could go wrong with giving a democratic government the power to strip voting rights from those people they deem unsuitable to vote on how they are governed? /s
As others have pointed out, this is just a natural-- and arguably desirable-- consequence of federation with a reddit-style format. However, I think the problem it causes could be somewhat mitigated by each platform implementing a feature to allow users to group magazines/communities manually-- and share them between instances and (ideally) platforms. Kind of like how Twitter did with "lists". (I think that's what they called them.)