I’m still bitter about the SSP/SMP merge. 1.2.5 runs so good.

Petition to keep Chile in place because I need my semi-cheap booze and if they’re moved as a bridge between Spain and Canada I’ll need to pay more for that booze.

I agree with you that both things have their upsides; and frankly, I don’t even think that we should be pandering to the immigration leftover wallowing in Reddit. Growth is good, but growth should never come at the expense of the community that you’re trying to grow.

However I feel like those points help to explain why the “lol lmao” crowds hate this place.

Besides other factors mentioned in this thread, there’s also

• selection bias: people with a positive view of Lemmy already migrated, so the leftover is bound to have more negative views
• older userbase: older people use language in a different way, talk about different topics, and dig into those topics in a different way. That often makes younger people throw a tantrum.
• group identity: for those “AS A SNOO” we’re basically apostates.
• edit: personal drama between higher ups is more visible here than in Reddit.

Easier: n(13-n).

The userbase is small but stable.

I agree that Reddit will become irrelevant to internet power users. However, I disagree that it takes a massive fuckup to lose the critical mass of users.

A simple way to explain this is to imagine that everyone has an individual “I’m pissed and I leave” threshold; if a platform displeases a user more than that threshold, they leave.

For power users, this threshold is really low, so they ditch platforms like Reddit faster. However, that does not mean that the others aren’t getting displeased - they do; it might not be enough to convince them to leave, but it quickly piles up with other things displeasing them.

As such, even a large platform can lose that critical mass of users over time, even without a massive fuckup. It’s just about small things piling up.

Another thing to consider is that power users are more important to a platform than the rest of the userbase, because the power users interact with the platform more. And they’re typically the ones doing janny crap, or finding and sharing content, or that actually have anything meaningful to add instead of “lol lmao”. So once the power users leave, the platform becomes less desirable for the others too, and that’s recursive - as the power users leave, the almost-power users leave too, then the ones after them, so goes on. And there the critical mass goes down the drain.

My guess: there won’t be a specific date that you can poinpoint and say “Reddit died here”. It’ll be a slow decline, with small outbursts of re-engagement. Something like this:

Profit will follow a similar pattern, as both things are intertwined.

Ginger with turmeric? Now that’s something I need to try. Thanks for the rec!

Ginger. But only because I refuse to call yerba mate “tea”.

I wish that it was darin (darling). It rolls off the tongue so much better.

I don’t think that handedness plays a huge role. I think that in some cases it’s simply random, and in other cases it’s “we write in this direction because that’s how we learned it”.

Inkwriting exists since at least the 2500 BCE, it was already used with hieroglyphs, and yet you see those being written left to right, right to left, boustrophedon, it’s a mess. Even with the Greek alphabet, people only stopped using boustrophedon so much around 300 BCE or so.

Plus if it played a role we’d see the opposite of what we see today - since the Arabic abjad clearly evolved among people who wrote with ink, that’s why it’s so cursive. In the meantime the favourite customary writing medium for Latin was wax tablets, where smudging ink is no issue:

[Just to be clear for everyone: I’m describing the issue, not judging anyone. I’m in no position to criticise the OP.]

The unfamiliar vocab is just the cherry on the cake. The main issue is that it’s hard to track everything; at least, when reading it for the first time. And most people don’t bother reading an excerpt enough times to understand it.

Makes me wonder how many people read scriptures/manifestos.

Almost nobody, I believe. And I’d go further: I don’t think that most people read longer texts that would “train” them for this sort of stuff.

We’re both interpreting it slightly different ways:

• you - the utterance is specific, the speaker is unspecified
• me - “utterance” is a placeholder for “discourse”, the speaker is whoever answers the question

To be honest this is really cool. Now I’m curious if one of us got it right, or if we’re both reading it wrong.

As you said in the other comment, the sentence is grammatically OK¹. However, it’s still a huge sentence, with a few less common words (e.g. “utterance”), split into two co-ordinated clauses, and both clauses are by themselves complex.

To add injury there’s quite a few ways to interpret “over the airwaves” (e.g. is this just radio, or does the internet count too?)

So people are giving up parsing the whole thing.

I also write like this, in a convoluted way², but I kind of get why people gave up.

1. I’m not sure if it’s semantically OK due to the word “utterance”.
2. Except when translating stuff, since I’m forced to roughly follow the “informational layout” of the original. That’s usually a PITA but it helps wonder for clarity!

My most controversial discourse* can be roughly phrased as “screw intentions”, “your intentions don’t matter”, “go pave Hell with your «intenshuns»”. It isn’t a single utterance*; I say stuff like this all the time, and regardless of the utterance used to convey said discourse, people will still disagree with it.

The one that I’m sometimes at fault is “people who assume are pieces of shit and deserve to be treated as such”. Because sometimes it is reasonable to assume (to take something as true even if you don’t know it for sure); just nowhere as much as people do.

*I’m being specific with terminology because it’s a big deal for me. “Discourse” is what you say, regardless of the specific words; “utterance” is a specific chain of language usage (be it voiced, gestured, written, etc.)

wtf does this even mean

OP is asking two things:

• the most controversial shit that you say
• the shit that you say and think “mmh, maybe I’m wrong but I’ll keep saying it”

…or at least that’s how I interpreted it.

Ten minutes, I guess? Brazil.

Hard of hearing old lady, right before me, was struggling to vote in the 2022 elections. Apparently she typed the numbers for her candidates but they didn’t go through. All five of them (governor, state deputy, president, federal deputy, senator).

Typically it takes 2~3 minutes though.

As others said it was a conscious decision of the developers, as it’s gamification of the system and they aren’t big fans of that.

I agree with this decision.

The Fluff Principle* makes easy-to-judge content get higher scores, and we do see it Lemmy. It isn’t a big deal because fluff ends on its own specific comms, but once you gamify the aggregation of score points, the picture changes - now you’re encouraging people to share content that they believe to score high over content that they believe to be contributive.

Additionally a publicly visible karma enables a bunch of poorly thought mod practices, like karma gating (“you need +500 karma to post here lol”) or automatically banning people with low karma (even if it might come from a single post/comment).

*“Hence what I call the Fluff Principle: on a user-voted news site, the links that are easiest to judge will take over unless you take specific measures to prevent it.” (Source)

I have never met a person who can isolate the moment when Tucker Carlson became Alex Jones. So, where did it come from exactly? …it’s very clear to me both are demons.