exasperation @ exasperation @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

300

Joined

10 mo. ago

So if you set up on small server A, and want to be discoverable by users on server B, C, D, and E, you have to do this for many different users and hope that they follow you back just so that those servers' users can find you.

And it basically defeats the main use case for where I actually understand microblogging, which is one-way announcements by semi-automated accounts that are widely followed that do not actually follow anyone else back.

It just sounds like a bad arrangement for discoverability and search.

hashtags are big on Mastodon

But I can't view the posts of any users by hashtag if those users aren't already being followed by someone from my server, right? That means I'd never want to join a small server if I'm just a lurker who doesn't really want to actively interact with others, because my own feed would be limited.

there's no algorithm

Sounds like an algorithm that's just more complicated and has unintuitive human inputs in it.

Yeah I remember seeing some stupid post somewhere about this guy saying "can you believe this man is only 45" and everyone in the comments saying "um yes that is what 45 year olds look like."

Follow people and hashtags and interact with them and you'll get followers.

That sounds like a convoluted method of self promotion, almost like SEO fake engagement, just to be discoverable. And if everyone on the network had to do this to be discoverable, how can I trust the discovery methods to find people worth following?

And if the cross instance discoverability has these kinds of hurdles, then the promise of federation isn't going to pan out.

At least with Lemmy the nature of the platforms, users following a smaller universe of potential communities, makes each community much more easily discoverable for people who don't necessarily want to be active posters. Mastodon's user-focused follow is much more limited in seamless federation.

Lifestyle changes to where my weekend schedule looks like my weekday schedule, just with different activities.

I am at home and relaxing by 11pm. I am in bed by 12am. Then I wake up at 7:30am. That's 7 and a half hours of sleep every night, at the same time every day, 7 days a week.

And that's not just lifestyle changes around not going out as late on weekends. It's also a lifestyle change where I started steering my career and work towards never needing to have any meetings or be at any specific place before 10am.

I'm not a morning person so I got a job where I don't have to be a morning person. My whole routine on weekday mornings is designed to make it so that nobody at work can touch my morning until I've had a chance to settle into my day.

I think that's true of all French fries everywhere. The deep frying technique fundamentally dehydrates the outside while leaving the inside with enough internal moisture to be soft or fluffy. That's an unstable setup that will trend towards equilibrium, drying out the center and softening up the exterior.

I don't really bother with the middle of the restaurant industry (and it's not just me, as chains like Chili's and Applebee's have complained about the trends hollowing out the middle). It's just not enough of an improvement over fast food or fast casual to be worth the higher cost, slower service, etc.

If I'm hungry and don't want to cook/clean, I'll grab fast food.

If I want to sit down at a full service restaurant, it'll probably be an expensive trendy place with recognition from James Beard or Michelin.

I appreciate compliments. I have a hard time accepting overly specific compliments.

The original note that started this thread was on the overly specific side.

I think this is a good scale.

Managing the relationship between interior temperature and outside sear (without burning) is a skill worth mastering first. Like you say, burgers, steaks, and other flat cuts are easier than irregular shapes.

Another skill to improve on is smoke management. Controlling both the temperature and the quality of smoke with fuel, heat, airflow is a balance: choking off burning wood to keep the temperature from rising too high tends to produce bad-tasting smoke, and giving enough oxygen for that thin blue smoke you want can sometimes cause the vessel to get a bit too hot.

Then, being able to control all of those things (internal temp, external temp, smoke quality) over a long enough period of time to cook tougher cuts is an increase in skill/difficulty. Smoking chicken might take an hour, while smoking ribs might take 3 hours, and smoking brisket might take 12+ hours. Some cooler cooks, like cold smoked salmon, can be challenging, too. Getting a feel for adding fuel to a cook and how to do that while maintaining the same steady stream of high quality smoke of the right temperature requires some experience.

Which also isn't to say that there isn't some room for a high level of skill on short cooks. Working with embers and wood and flame to make short cooks over high heat can be challenging, too. Smoked or wood fired vegetables are especially interesting, as some introduce moisture control as an element, over time frames short enough to precise timing starts to matter, too.

Anyone can be interested in anything.

Yeah, but I'm responding to a comment that says that neurotypical people aren't curious or passionate about the things they're interested in, and I think that's too narrow of a way to define "interest."

I'd reject that way of thinking because that principle could be weaponized to accuse some neurodivergent people of not caring about people by misreading why they might not be great with social cues or things like that.

I think for most people it's just a matter of tradeoffs. You don't have to be interested in the act of doing something in order to be interested in the consequence of doing that thing.

Someone who doesn't like driving may still drive, and concentrate on driving the entire time, to get to a destination where they want to end up. For someone who doesn't like to cook but wants to eat hot food, cooking is a means to that end.

Now, if you're saying that you don't think that tradeoff is worth it to you, maybe that's true of them if they stop to think about it, too. But I'm not sure that's what's going on for most people who continue to work jobs they don't like.

Neurotypicals tend to lack curiosity and passion for interests.

When the interest at issue is human relationships and social norms, I think it flips the other way around.

Better to characterize things by what type of interests tend to appeal to which.

If you think about it elevators are just vertical trains

Exactly.

I'm probably generally more optimistic about the future than the average Lemmy users, but even if I were pessimistic about the broad big picture questions, I'd still have plenty of local bits of local optimism. I really enjoy the company of my friends and family. I'm excited about my kids growing into cool adults who will do good things, from the tiny and mundane (a piece of artwork, a joke that makes me laugh) to the medium (taking an interest in my interests) to the big stuff (making big moves to change the world for the better).

I can't end poverty or hunger. But I can support the food bank in my neighborhood and volunteer/give to organizations that are doing good work at alleviating hunger and homelessness. And maybe feeding someone a single meal doesn't change the systemic problem that made him rely on my charity, but you'd better believe that meal still makes a difference to him in that moment.

Same with getting local kids their school supplies, helping a neighbor raise funds to pay off some medical debt, getting someone work clothes so that they can go interview for a job, teaching people how to negotiate and organize for better pay, etc.

We have plenty of power, collectively. Let's not waste it being miserable and unproductive.

Now I make 230

Yeah the break even point is like the early 30's, even among people who are killing it in either path.10 years of $100k+ in your 20's won't be able to build up enough of a buffer against $200k+ after 30, when retirement ages are around 60.

a number of students that were attending just because family wanted them to, but their heart wasn’t in it

There are probably an even higher percentage of those in trade schools or entry level trades roles. You can't compare the worst outcomes in one category with the best outcomes in another, and should instead compare medians.

Seems like there's a way to analyze this in a systematic way, from social security name data. Any name that popped up as a newly popular name and fell back off within a decade or two would probably eventually become a marker of that generation.

Gladys was popular between 1900 and 1920, and became known as an old lady name by the 80's or 90's.

Karen was popular between 1945 and 1965, and is regarded a prototypical boomer name.

The Baby Jessicas of the 80's will be retirees in the 2050's. Ashleys and Emilys will probably be that in the 2060's. There will be Britneys and Emmas.

But the methodology could probably be applied to the data in a systematic way.

Nah, that advice is still correct. The 4-year degree provides a huge benefit over not having it.

It's just that a lot of people don't realize just how much shittier not having a degree in 2024 is compared to not having a degree in 1974.

So while the baseline has gotten worse, and the actual benefit of college has shrunk, it's still easily worth the 4 year commitment and the tuition/opportunity cost.

Altoona melt

I was gonna eat that steak anyway, whether I send zero or 100 emails today.

Whoa that slur will get you shadow banned from some social media sites