591–600 of 669 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? The claim was that women to a higher degree find "direct, robust speech" alienating. Disregarding whether it's true or not, and my own reservations against using "robust" as a descriptor, it looks like a fairly neutral statement to me.
> The claim was that women to a higher degree find "direct, robust speech" alienating. I'll assume that (1) you're not sexist and (2) you're asking why is this claim rooted in sexism. The nature of this claim is rooted in an idea that any observable behaviors between genders is due to the nature of genders themselves. It is not worded to indicate that its root is, for instance, a commentary about how _external factor…
That is an absurdly strong claim that contradicts lots of evidence in many cases.
I seem to remember a talk I heard a very long time ago, maybe by Joel Splosky? He was saying that he'd observed the "population change" effect in USENET; where argumentative jerks tended to stay and helpful people tended to be driven away; and in his mind the "reply in-line" mechanic specifically contributed to this. So the first-order goal he had when he built Stack Overflow was to build a system with mechanics whic…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What id like to see is a federated MySpace-like service. Users could host their blog on an instance of their choice, toy around its styling or its content directly as to learn about web techs (or keep it simple and remain with the default stylesheet!), and yet remain discoverable thanks to the federated nature of such service. If I had the time its honestly something id love working on.
You can kinda get that from microblog.pub. It federates via ActivityPub and is a single-user customizable micro¯o blog. https://docs.microblog.pub/user_guide.html#customization
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're confusing strong evidence for causality with establishment and absolute proof of causality. This is even discussed in the sources you've cited (second link). For example here is a quote from one of your sources about the necessity understanding the underlying mechanism before causality can be established: > A causal mechanism is the process that creates the connection between the variation in an independent va…
>If you argue this further I'm just going to conclude you're trolling and won't respond again. >You are wrong. Face it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there's a terminology issue here. If the left and the right servers are never federated, then the experience will be homogeneous even if the fediverse is itself not. In other words, I probably shouldn't not have used the term homogeneous and stuck with "echo chamber". I was trying to avoid that term because of its pejorative connotations. It seems to me there is value in being exposed to what people you disag…
Experiencing homogeneity is a natural thing. Humans always self-segregate into groups when gathered in large numbers. I don't see anything wrong with people choosing an echo chamber if that makes them happy. It's being coerced into the echo chamber or the open forum that I disagree with.
One thing (perhaps the thing) that makes Wikipedia great is that it doesn't seek the truth. Instead, it seeks verifiability. This means that editors don't have to be experts to write articles, which is the main reason the site is useful at all. The truth can be very elusive. So it makes sense to move that burden to the sources.
I'd expand that: Wikipedia's greatness is due to its policies and guidelines in general. It is not surprising that they were drafted by a second-time encyclopedist and PhD in epistemology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger The next best thought out knowledge-based site is StackExchange.
There's also the whole way the software works. So that's twice that Wikipedia owes Ward Cunningham.
Well, that and the most important exchange of all of course:
"My question, to this esteemed Wiki community, is this: Do you think that a Wiki could successfully generate a useful encyclopedia? -- JimboWales [a]
Yes, but in the end it wouldn't be an encyclopedia. It would be a wiki. -- WardCunningham [b]" [2]
[2] https://wiki.c2.com/?WikiPedia
I seem to remember a talk I heard a very long time ago, maybe by Joel Splosky? He was saying that he'd observed the "population change" effect in USENET; where argumentative jerks tended to stay and helpful people tended to be driven away; and in his mind the "reply in-line" mechanic specifically contributed to this. So the first-order goal he had when he built Stack Overflow was to build a system with mechanics whic…
This sounds interesting please could you share a link if you find it?
Why at least a year after? I also remember the speaker relating a conversation he had with someone from whom it seems like he was asking for money: maybe a VC? The VC told the speaker, "I sat on a plane next to somebody who told me he doesn't answer anything on stackoverflow any more because all the questions are answered too quickly." And the speaker responded, "So wait. You talked to a random person on a plane. This person had heard of my website. And his main complaint was that questions were answered too quickly?"
Wikipedia says SO did get VC funding in 2010, so that sort of matches; and quote from sibling comment is along the same lines. So I don't think I'm imagining things, but I also don't think I'm going to be able to give much more information. :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The flip side of that is larry sanger's post-wikipedia success record is very bad and quite frankly a bit nutty.
Larry Sanger is now a conspiracy theorist [1], believing gems including: - Antifa did the coup. - Face masks are harmful. - There have been "almost zero" deaths from COVID-19. - Soros may have paid people to riot for George Floyd. - The Ten Commandments were God's words: not "inspired", but precisely dictated. [2] Since Wikipedia is hostile to conspiracy theories and religious woo, Larry has in the ensuing years trie…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Take a look at some of the details about what I’m saying. If you still feel like you were told the truth then that is fine. No trials on transmission were done yet we were lead to believe they were. I was skeptical myself at first.
I was never under the impression that there were any trials specifically about transmission. I can believe some people said or published articles saying that it would reduce transmission, I'm not sure they'd all claim it was from evidence that it did, as opposed to just inference that it would. I'm interested where you feel you were led to believe it would? I also find the word "truth" in your sentence a bit confusin…
I have a hard time believing you somehow missed fauci or Walenski or ALL of the mainstream media going on for months about the vaccine preventing transmission. There was even the famous Rachel Maddie “it stops, with every vaccinated person”.
So if public health officials didn’t believe it stopped transmission why attempt (and fail) to implement a mandate through OSHA?