geosoco @ geosoco @kbin.social

Posts

393

Comments

226

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

It's also easier to find and fix bugs with smaller numbers of people, especially performance bugs which can be amplified at scale. So it gives them a lot of time to work through issues over the beta. It also gives them time to build teams around the expanding infrastructure and build processes for monitoring and handling issues as a larger team.

Plus, these invite only periods start with more tech savy early adopters who more willing to put up with issues, and willing to provide decent bug reports to fix them.

It's a convenience article. They're just reporting some number they have access to.

I'd bet mastodon saw an increase, but i haven't seen the numbers.

It's also hard to get a good count since it's not centralized. So whatever numbers we do see, could be wildly underreported.

Sadly, I'm out at the moment.

Depends on your interests, my feed is too active. It's a lot of shitposting, some academics, journalists, and some just very online people.

A lot of very prolific folks from Twitter moved there.

Same. Mine's too lively, but it is fairly heavily skewed towards some specific interests.

I check maybe once a day, but I can't keep up with all that's going on there.

I signed up ages ago too, but I don't think they ever sent them out like that. I got an invite from someone else.

I think it's largely about control, but on a couple of different levels.

The people who fund the party, use it as a funnel to regress protections and restrictions so they can concentrate wealth and power and force people into situations that ensure that.

The people who vote are left in constant fear that they don't have control over their lives, their futures, and everything is being taken away from them (it's not true, but it's easy to manufacture that perspective).

The politicians leverage this by targeting smaller groups of people, pushing them as a threat, and using it to mobilize votes for nonsensical policies that don't solve any issues the voters actually face. But it feels like progress. Since 2016, there's an additional side of this where it's given some people the audacity to think they can treat people like shit, again because it gives them a sense of being able to control something in their lives, and this is really powerful as a motivator. It doesn't matter that it works against their entire identity they've built up.

Yes, that's part of what's surprising about the number.

TikTok
YouTube

What was it prior to using a phone? Did they have external devices or something that notified you?

The named email says Abbott's teams are working to "verify and confirm compatibility", so it's unclear if this is an actual issue or just a precaution over what they think could be an issue.

Here's the psyarxiv link - It's short and worth reading.

It sounds like some of the general issue here is around the language of being "dominant" and "well-established" and that it might be receiving undue attention without more thorough research supporting it. There's also some concern about the testability of some of the claims the theory proposes.

Part of the letter's issue seems to be about sharing results prior to peer-review.

The actual letter doesn't seem to claim it should be labeled pseudoscience, but just mentions that some others have labeled it that:

"IIT is an ambitious theory, but some scientists have labeled it as pseudoscience"

(edit: language clarifications)

Not research, but cool.

I'm not hell-bent on people pushing back against folks arguing against it -- I LOVE that, and I love that you want to do that. I'm against people doing it in ways that boost their voices and what they're saying and giving them more platform to do it. I gave you a few options. You can also dig up news articles about this issue and post them.

But you do you.

My point isn't to not argue for the existence of human beings, just be selective about who you argue with and how that draws attention to them. You can do that without replying to them to bring them back. Just reference their name without @ing them. You can share this info without that.

"don't feed the trolls" not enlightened centerist nonsense, and there aren't good-faith moderators on lemmy.world. This has been around for 30+ years at this point, and people do it because it works, and it's been researched. Removing or diminishing their voice is the only thing that helps, regardless of how its done, and there's research on this plus tons of experience of people modding communities.

They also have fun with it. Their goal is to waste your time. So even if you have fun with it, you're still boosting the behavior so they can go back to their corners and share it with others, who then also come back.

There's a reason so many spaces just rely on banning. Your time is better spent sharing reasonable articles for the people who actually are semi-coherent, and you're going to have more effect doing that.

it's better to just write new comments and downvote such that theirs get burried.

Engaging them just makes longer threads that draw attention to their comments. Everytime you reply, he comes back and adds more comments.

I'm sure it can be bundled with office subscriptions for a discounted price of an extra 45$ a month, perfect to accelerate your office's productivity.

Don't bother. The dude is a troll.

Yup. Doesn't he still owe a ton of money to many local cities for event security that he never paid for?