- 0 Posts
- 30 Comments
You clearly have no clue whatsoever what you’re talking about, and I don’t mean it as an insult: it’s a plain statement of fact.
The idea that people obcessed with things like LGBT rights want a Revolution Of The Proletariat in which they confiscate the Means Of Production from the hands of the Burgeouisie and set up a Dictatorship Of The Proletariate as a way to bring about a system were everybody has the same (i.e. Communism) is hilarious and displays trully amazing, world-beating ignorance on the subject.
Your total misunderstanding perfectly proves the point of the previous post about “tankie” being a term picked up by the far-right and taken way beyond its meaning.
Tankies are authoritarian far left types, such as for example Stalinists (so, not just any general Communist, but the kind of Communist that has a hard-on for “strong leaders” who murder by the millions those who such leaders themselves deem as “enemies of the Party”). They’re the Nazis of the Left (which is probably why they’re right alongside actual Nazis and assorted fascists in siding with Putin against Ukraine).
Meanwhile woke people are just moral liberals, often not even being leftwing in the true sense of the word because they don’t actually care about inequality in general or about a better life for the many, but instead are selective about the “injustices” they care about, invariably leaving out wealth-inequality (the biggest source of discriminatory treatment by a very large margin) and often claiming their own “identitarian” group is a “victim” of “injustice” and demanding compensation, which is really just doing what’s best for themselves personally but hidding behind the group, in other words being greedy whilst using leftie-like political structures and language.
In the Left-Right political axis, “woke” covers a wide range from “mildly leftwing” to “business loving hard-core neoliberal” (neoliberalism is just “money liberalism” so it dovetails nicelly with moral liberalism), because “woke” it’s not at all about the greatest good for the greatest number but rather it’s about freedom in the moral sphere.
What’s liked by the general population is a good metric for providing general stuff to the general population and that’s what we’re talking about in All.
That average can however deviate a lot from the sweet spot for some people, quite possibly a large minority (even the majority depending on how concentrated or not people’s tastes are around it).
Something that looks at your previous choices (or even generally stated choices in the form of communities you subscribe to or block) similarly to what some search engines and some social media sites will do, can shift that toward more your own specific tastes, but that’s computationally more expensive and requires more users and more user data to get better results (basically it’s finding certain kinds of users and local minima which are more satisfactory to them).
I suspect something like an AI solution (not LLM, just a much simpler neural network) running on your own device that tries to predict what you’re going to click on and learns with what you do (or not) is the only way for a personalized “no fluff on my feed” solution, but that’s for apps running on top of Lemmy, not the Lemmy engine.
The thing is, a 10% upvoted post on a 10,000 people community is more popular than a 90% upvoted post on a 1000 people community - those 10,000 people in the former community are 10,000 people interested enough in that kind of thing to subscribe, whilst only 1000 people are interested enough in the other kind of thing.
So it does make sense to put the former higher up in the global page when sorted by popularity because globally that post was more popular.
However I do think there should be someway to as a user push down posts from certain communities without outright blocking the whole thing: maybe som throttling-down based on the rate of posts per time (i.e. the upvote threshold for posts from a community to come out in All depends on the number of otherwise qualifying posts in the last X days/hours, thus explicitly targetting the “flooding with posts” itself) rather than the straight count of upvotes or the proportion of upvotes that you suggest.
That said in the meanwhile I’m really tempted to block the more generic meme communities.
Same principle behind the “Everybody is perfect but me in Facebook” misperception - ones sees a cultivated image of others there which one compares with the intimatelly familiar image (with all the warts) one has of oneself and, well, a carefully cultivated image is almost always superior to a nothing hidden one unless you’ve gotten to a point were you actually value people’s quirks more than flat, tasteless, always-the-same “perfection” and/or can read beyond peoples’ masks (things are a lot my interesting when you ask yourself “Why has this person felt the need to post this?”)
This is then amped up by certain personality traits which are stronger at certain stages of one’s life (i.e. the natural insecurities of youth) which fill the “missing pieces” in other people’s life, drives and intentions with an overly positive fantasy rather than a realistic one (which would roughly be “Everybody fucks up at times. Everybody has quirks. Lots of energy spent on managing appearance means the rest of a persona is likely underdeveloped”).
It doesn’t help that the current society of celebrity-celebration, ubiquitous-marketing and creating-emotion-to-induce-action is almost entirelly anchored on fakeness: we’re constantly faced with carefully-crafted unachievable fantasy examples of what we are told we should aim for (normally with a “buy this to be more like that” message) and that always leaks something, even if just an uncomfortable pressure.
This is far from being just a problem for those who are not neurotypical, though those who for one reason or other are “more aware of the ticking of their internal clockworks” probably spot better that there are pushes and pulls (or at least attemptes at it) from the outside even if they can’t quite track it down.
For me (neurotypical as far as I know), habits are a mix of 3 things:
- Conditioning from when I was a kid (quite literally Pavlovian Conditioning) which I will do without thinking. For example I will clean my shoes on the doormat both on the way in and the way out, the latter not really making logical sense: I’ve just been conditioned by my mother when I was a kid with constant “Clean your shoes!” and the behaviour just got associated with the trigger of going over the doormat, hence I unthinkingly do it also on the way out
- Familiar and always (so far) no problem choices. For example having lunch in pretty much always the same handful of places, buying the same brand of certain things. As an introvert I am not comfortable with new places with new people plus there is a cognitive cost (and risk) with trying new things, hence the familiar feels comfortable and the unfamiliar discomforting. The habit is driven by favoring the easy/comforting over the discomforting. This is not the same as being unable to change: I’m actually a serial immigrant and can very quickly adjust to living in a completelly new place and a different country (nowadays it takes me only a few days) - it’s just that there is a huge barrier to actually get myself to the point of starting such a change.
- Stuff I have to force myself to do because it’s important to do it for social or health reasons. Shave, proper cooking (rather than quick improvisation involving no significant meal preparation or ready-made meals), even brushing my teeth.
All those things qualify as habits (in the sense of being done regularly) but the drives for each class of thing are very different.
PS: I get the impression that what some think of as habits in a neurotypical sense is mainly the first class of things. As far as I know nobody has only conditioned habits, plus you can’t really condition complex things (at best you can have a “get up and go do it” conditioning).
It doesn’t get much more Capitalist than maximizing profitability by minimizing manpower expenses and there really is nothing in the Capitalist ideology about the methods of doing so which involve the use of force to make people work for free not being allowed, quite the contrary (it’s all about how businesses should be free, not people)
Capitalism has nothing at all about Morality, which is something that always came from outside it, be it traditional Conservative Family Values and Religion or the various The Greatest Good For The Greatest Number theories from the left (some genuine, others hypocrite).
The Everybody For Themselves that Capitalism promotes is actually the moral of the Sociopath (in the Psychology sense of zero consideration for others, not in the movie sense of evil-doing for the pleasure of it which is ridiculously off).
The US has way better propaganda - the marketing strategies invented in the 60s by the nephew of Freud were put to very good use at bypassing people’s reasoning and not just at making them feel needs, fears, and short-term endorphine jolts related to products and services being sold.
Also the US has way better circus and more bread than Russia.
That’s just a variant of the ages old Philosophy question “What is real?”
Last I checked the best answer there was is “I think therefore I am” (Descartes), which is quite old and doesn’t even deal with the whole “what am I”, much less with the existance or not of everything else.
“Is the Internet all AI but me” is actually pretty mild skepticism in this domain - I mean, how sure are your that your’re not some kind of advanced AI yourself who believes itself to be “human” or even that the whole “human” concept is at all real and not just part of an advanced universe simulation with “generative simulated organic life” inv which various AIs which are unaware of their AI status, such as yourself, participate?
Or maybe you’re just one of the brains of a 5-dimensional hyper intelligence and “life as a human” is but a game they play for such minor brains to keep them occupied…
At least frameworks like Unity and Unreal will just, automatically if a model is entirelly outside the camera view frostum, not at all send those vertices to the Graphics Card to be rendered. If I remember it correctly a set of bounds is calculated (which can be pretty simple: look at all 3D model vertices and get the max X, max Y and max Z) and used to determine if the model is visible or not visible, a method that can only produce mistakes in the too pessimistic direction (i.e. treat as visible something which in practice is not) than optimistic, a technique which goes all the way back to the engine ID Software made and used for Doom.
So if using a framework there really is no “developers work” involved as its done at the level of the framework itself (i.e. the libraries used) - in Unity, for example, it’s literally checking or unchecking an option.
Further, at the graphics shader level itself you can further discard triangles (so, elements of a 3D model rather than the whole model) if they are outside the camera view frostum.
Last but not least the GPU itself won’t even try to run the fragments step (the last part of processing were the color for each pixel is calculated) outside the camera rendering plane (which is typically the screen, but virtual “cameras” are also used for other stuff, like shadow casting).
Yeah, that too.
I reckon that many people’s expectation and even desire for what’s familiar (a natural human preference for the known and familiar which is often confused with actually liking it) that ends up as a desire expressed in these comments for a BIGGER Fediverse is due to the their constant exposure to big and crowded situations again and again, which in turn is because Capitalism tends to create those in all kinds of context (virtual or otherwise) as they’re more profitable.
Do we really need 10s of millions of people here???!
Having gone through the time when AOL first allowed its members access to the Internet, the impression I ended up with was that it was exactly having the sub-culture of the time overwhelmed by the vastly larger culture of the AOL members that mainly screwed things up.
I think the desire for massive crowds is just a reflection of what we’ve become used to in the last couple of decades rather than the conclusion of thinking it through.
Mind you, I’m not saying that I have the answer, I’m trying to throw out there the idea that maybe in a forum of forums system “the more” aren’t “the merrier” because the sweet spot of participation to make a forum pleasant is somewhere in the middle rather than more always being better.
It’s like reaching an oasis after decades of crossing a seemingly endless intellectually dry desert of people concerned above all with indulging their lowest most immature and selfish petty emotional needs, riddled with “statues” to peak Dunning-Krugger all invariably labelled “Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!”.
Mind you, some of the most ridiculous attempts at creating silly memes here do show that a lot of the “look at me” and “desperate to join a group, any group” types did come along to the Fediverse, though I think they’re more of a subculture here than the dominant culture.
Mind you, we all have those characteristics in some level (as can be noticed by the people trying desperatelly to signal their “in-crowd” status by using the word “normie” to describe some vague “out-crowd”), but I like to think that in most of the ones over here now (at least the ones commenting) it’s not quite at the level of mindless and desperate as it was in one’s more younger and less mature years and with those who are far too concerned with what others will think of them and even securing some narcissitic supply.
Mainstream parties, which are pretty much ideology-free (or as their top people often call it: “pragmatic”) also relly heavilly on clubism, so I think cultivating fans not partners it’s a much more widespread strategy than merely only for the “standardized political slogan packs” which are ideologies (failed or otherwise).
All the well spoken amoral greedy fuckers know exactly where to go to maximize their personal upsides from those “skills” in a system where power alternates between only two political parties.
Power Duopolies created through mathematical rigging of representative allocation systems are better than outright One Party systems but not by much and certainly not Democratic or in any way close to representative of the entire interests and beliefs of millions of human beings.
I’ve actually lived in countries with FPTP and with Proportional Vote and the way the latter countries are managed is vastly better than the former and even public discourse a lot more produtive.
After over 3 decades of voting, across 3 countries, even having held beliefs all the way from what I though was “communism” (when I was little more than a kid) through neoliberalism and finally settling down to a sort of social democracy (shaped by and subservient to my principles) and having even been involved in a supposedly thinking leftwing party around here I would stay that mindless tribalism is exactly what almost the entirety of politics is nowadays.
The whole “building your on political beliefs starting from your core principles upwards, and always keeping them in mind” thing is very unusually: normally (even in that supposedly “thinking” people party) it’s all about choosing sides, growing an emotional bond with your side and then just blindly waving the team’s flag and unskeptically take in and parrot whatever your side’s celebrities says as if they’re unchallangeable truths delivered down all the way from the gods.
In fact I’m pretty pissed from discovering that most people in even that party of supposedly thinking people are little more than clubist political parrots. It does however explain why so many measures people parrot as the right thing to do are actually one-sided and in practice not anchored in the principles we’re told they’re suppose to promote, sometime even de facto going against them: when people are unskeptical unthinking fans of the team, they’re really easy to lead by the nose by womever captures the leadership positions on that team, an sometimes said leaders aren’t even purposefully manipulative, they’re just nowere as bright as their small-pond celebrity status makes them think and generally have ridiculously narrow life experience and hence don’t really know much about how the World works outside their tiny tiny bubble.
Exchanging stuff is absolutelly natural (you see little children doing it) and extending barter trading to “trading for tokens which can be exchanged with different people for other things” is really just introducing a new type of item being exchanged.
Going from sharing of ideas to not-sharing, on the other hand, is going for doing something naturally to the very opposite of that (hence my use of “anti-natura”).
I don’t think “exchanging stuff but now with tokens” is at all comparable with “stop doing what you would otherwise naturally do without even thinking about it and bring into this exchange an unrelated 3rd party”.
I feel like you’re trying to hammer a square peg in a round hole there: Copyright Legislation is not about the natural give and take in a exchange or trade (in this case of information) but rather it involves a 3rd party, which is not even present, which is the owner of the copyright of said information (used to be the creator, nowadays it can be anybody or a company) who is artificially inserted in what would otherwise be a normal exchange between 2 persons as an additional externaly party that also requires something.
I suspect the recurrent confusion of so many between copyright violation and theft is exactly because copyright is entirely unnatural, so people fall back to the closest instinctive human behaviour to try and understand it, ending up with the completelly way out there incorrect idea that copyright violation is like one side in an exchange taking stuff from the other and running away before giving their stuff to the other, when in reality you have to sides doing an absolutelly normal exchange (or even a gifting) and there is a 3rd party, not physicially present and never met, seen or otherwise involved with either which the powers of the land say is supposed to authorize that exchange and get a cut if it so wishes, and which both parties of that exchange choose to ignore.
It’s not theft because both parties on the exchange are conducting a normal exchange just like they do with all other classes of thin and both are abidding by it. The closest “normal” illegality to copyroght violation is tax evasion and not tax in a democratic nation (were the money goes into the common pot to help everybody) but rather tax in an absolute monarchy or dictatorship were whomever was supposed to get that cut from that transaction is going to keep the money and even then the analogy fails because your’re also supposed to give that 3rd party money even when GIFTING something.
Copyright is not a natural law - there is nothing natural about for example not telling a joke to somebody else without first tracking down the person who invented it and agreeing on payment for being allowed to tell it.
And, no, I’m not exagerating: as soon as it is created that joke legally has a copyright, owned by its creator, and sharing it (and that includes “public performances” such as telling it to your friends) requires the authorization of the owner of that copyright in that joke.
The only reason you don’t see people fined for telling jokes is because it’s not enforced because it’s not worth the trouble (plus it would quickly turn people against Copyright).
So, now that we’ve shown that Copyright does in fact go against the natural human tendency to share - literally it’s anti-natura - then that means it’s an artificial construct created by man, so a law, written by lawmakers, with all the problems that rules made by politicians have.
Now, if you look at the justification for creating such an artificial restriction on the naturaly human tendency of sharing what you heard, it’s to “incentivise creation”, which “benefits all because the copyrighted work will go into the Public Domain at the end of the copyright period”.
This makes sense, and it might even have been true in the beginning but it’s not anymore:
- You see, when this Law was first made the copyright period started as 25 years, which meant that copyrighted works did indeed go into the Public Domain to be freely enjoyed by all, but over the years that period has extended (go look at the various time when that period was extended and you will find the “strange” “coincidence” of it happenning when the first Mickey Mouse movie was about to go out of Copyright in the US) and is now around lifetime of the creator plus 50 years (more in certain countries, such as the US), which means that almost none of the creative works we grew up with (in our childhood) will never go into the Public Domain before we’re dead and burried.
Think about it: under the current Copyright Legislation, for every single one of us and for all effects and purposes the “contract” between Society and cultural creators were Society enforces an artifical limitation to the natural human act of sharing and in return cultural creators make works which although at first requiring payment to enjoy, will one day be free to enjoy has been broken - we will never freely enjoy those works we’ve known since our childhood, the payment that Society (in other words: all of us) was supposed to get for that artificial limitation to sharing.
If a contract has been broken the injured side (that would be Society) doesn’t have an obligation to abide by it.
Yeah, I have the same experience: if you’ve worked long enough in Tech you know its limitations and all the ways it can go wrong hence being a bit skeptical about “high”-tech solutions for things which work fine already with “low”-tech.
Also, you’re well aware that deep down it’s still people having made all the decisions about how it works, only it’s people one level away from end-users (people doing stuff directly for people see how actual recipients of the services react and respond, people doing stuff which then does stuff for people, do not) so the design is often worse when there is Tech in the middle. This explains the fashion-following fad of using of touch screens in cars for functions that are interacted with when a person is driving and supposed to be looking at the road.
This kind of Piracy (not to be confused with the whole ship plundering one) is not a crime in most of the World, rather it’s a Civil Law affair, so roughly in the same basket as breach-of-contract.
I suspect the whole “illegal content” stuff is about things like child porn or bomb making instructions, not breach of copyright.
The good old Mythical Man Hour.
(In simple terms, as the number of people increases, the communications overheads also increase, generally faster, so if you have more people a greater proportion of time is wasted, hence work done doesn’t increase proportionally to the number of people. Or if you just want to inform management that more people won’t simply mean the work gets done much faster just give the example of “If takes 9 months for a woman to make a child, it doesn’t mean you can get 9 women and make a child in one month”)