Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)F
Posts
7
Comments
392
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Really? Jeez. Last I heard, evidently incorrectly, was a few dollars at best. That explains their ghoulishness somewhat.

    Even so, Facebook brings in enormous profit. Evidently a result of maximizing whatever they can get away with

    I'm wondering what the costs are to cover just hosting / content delivery.

    Ie, is it feasible at some point that a not-for-profit social platform comes about. Or a for profit one that promotes itself as ethical and subsequently charges premium users based on running costs + moderate profit rather than pushing every kind of manipulative behaviour it can get away with just to maximise ad value.

  • People pay to remove ads from YouTube, Netflix, Amazon etc.

    The point wouldn't be to put people off, you can still push the platform to the masses as "free". It's just that once you're there if you find the ads annoying or you don't want your feed algo'd to death, then it has a "remove ads" paid option that currently platforms all lack..

  • Disable ads for $2 a month?

    Just anything this doesn't then try to bleed people in every conceivable way..

    All the algo manipulation comes from an over reliance on ad income. If a social network put its costs + a modest profit onto premium users what would that look like?

    Surely at some point a network that can honestly say "we aren't reliant on sponsors" is going to be appealing to enough people. (Even if there is then a free ad supported tier for those who don't have an option - it would hardly be worse than what they've currently got)

  • How hard is it to run a platform charging a couple dollars a month so that you don't need to turn into a ghoulish capitalist nightmare? Like, really. If even one of them went the "no ads, ever, just a tiny monthly fee" wouldn't that be better? Wouldn't everyone flock there? Is everyone so dumb that they think these huge sites will run for free?? No.. wait I think I've answered my own question..

  • "Our new GestureSupport("Gestapo") means you can now upvote by striking your arm up and to the right..."

  • I'd print Wikipedia if I had the resources ;)

    Yes, current articles or, say, last 5 years maybe?

  • It's for a retreat that will have no electrics. Hence paper only. Paperback preferably.

  • Kimberley M., 1998

  • I find reflecting on violence done to one's self is more complex, because you have full control over whether the suffering should be your own or an attacker's. And you may start reflecting on 'what's a proportional response?', 'is killing them justified when you don't know if they'd have taken your life or not?', 'might they not be responsible for their actions?', 'it's it better to suffer a little and give people the benefit of the doubt?'. This can get layered with all sorts of guilt and doubt depending what you factor in. 'did I contribute to the economic injustice that has produced this mugger who's attacking me?'

    Etc etc. It's a quagmire.

    I find things become simpler when I consider an attacker about to assault a weaker person - a child say - in front of me. Should I use violence to stop that attacker?

    Given that it now doesn't seem to be my place to reflect on the just suffering of a child, the obligation to stop the attacker with force becomes clearer.

    At least it seems morally clear (at least to me) that to claim to be a pacifist when observing a violent assault on a child, one is no better than the attacker.

    That breaks the idealistic (and naive) hope that there might be a way to be non-violent and just. After that, one has better tools to re-evaluate assaults upon one's self. If I am a person who through their actions reduces unjust suffering, then allowing myself to come to harm harms others and is unjust. Protecting one's self with violence becomes justified and necessary.

    (When I was a student I was an idealist and a pacifist. When I became a father it became quite clear to me that I would break someone else in half if they were hurting my children..)

  • I went to school with half of them

  • It didn't matter to me until I had a laptop that booted super fast. And now it matters...

  • Things I've learnt:

    • the American continental army tried to take Quebec early in the war but were unsuccessful
    • inhabitants of British Canadian territory did not have the same sentiment towards Independence as in the 13 American colonies, it was far more sparsely populated, lived in closer association with indigenous people, and was not economically large enough to consider independence
    • after the war, many British loyalists left America and settled in Canada causing the cultures to diverge even more
    • Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and other bits all used to be part of British Québec
    • America attempted to claim all the above plus canadian Quebec in the Paris peace talks after the war
    • in the end the British surrendered only the above territories and kept modern day Québec with the border becoming more or less the modern US-Canadian one
  • Id like to see a sort of Inglorious Basterds meets Quantum Leap meets Munich where a team go back in time and foil Dunblaine (UK).. Sandy Hook.. Uvalde.. Not even school shootings per se.. I'd like to see a team rush in and save kids at Aberfan with seconds to spare. Crushes my heart every time..

  • There isn't a solution. People don't want to pay for something that costs huge resources. So their attention becoming the product that's sold is inevitable. They also want to doomscroll slop; it's mindless and mildly entertaining. The same way tabloid newspapers were massively popular before the internet and gossip mags exist despite being utter horseshite. It's what people want. Truly fighting it would requires huge benevolent resources, a group willing to finance a manipulative and compelling experience and then not exploit it for ad dollars, push educational things instead or something. Facebook, twitter etc are enshitified but they still cost huge amounts to run. And for all their faults at least they're a single point where illegal material can be tackled. There isn't a proper corollary for this in decentralised solutions once things scale up. It's better that free, decentralised services stay small so they can stay under the radar of bots and bad actors. When things do get bigger then gated communities probably are the way to go. Perhaps until there's a social media not-for-profit that's trusted to manage identity, that people don't mind contributing costs to. But that's a huge undertaking. One day hopefully...

  • It could be a stroke keyboard typo for "twat" (assuming they missing hitting the initial T)

  • I meant, at the time, it was a British colony

  • When you find someone else hot and you're not jacking to porn it's a miracle any man lasts more than a minute. With a bit of experience you can pace yourself and last longer. It would take deliberate thought to last, say, 20 mins. Many men couldn't do direct stimulation for that long. So it's probably worth talking about how to pace things, switch things up, have quickies and then other times longer times.

  • I agree with an this. But the other things to consider are that automation should make it easier to break into an industry. I worked for an upstart insurance company using automation to serve half a million customers with 6 core staff. With automation it's becoming easier for a few bright people to set up a competing service, not harder. At some point (and obvs it will probably be a bumpy ride) but at some point more competitive services should be available to both consumers and the government. That should make gov spending go further. Maybe that's miles away from the American mindset, but in UK / Europe people are looking for the point where automation allows certain basic services to be provided from the government for free (or at least covered by existing taxes). Which should lead to some standard of living improvements even if in other areas ghoulish megacorps still hoover up the power.

  • The natural state of human society is fear and oppression, it's been that way for millennia (and further). Rather than Russia being the exception, it's more a wonder, a miracle, that the West ever managed to cultivate democracy, liberalism and reduction in corruption in the first place. Not that it's perfect, far from it, and in fact it's backsliding at the moment, but holding power to account, making it follow the law, is a thoroughly European thing as far as history goes. A tradition that Russia only just skirts the edges of.