• 1 Post
  • 623 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 14th, 2023

help-circle

  • It’s a discussion of principle.

    This is a foreign concept?

    It appears to be a foreign concept for you.

    I don’t believe that it’s a fundamentally bad thing to converse in moderated spaces; you do. You say “giving somebody the power to arbitrarily censor and modify our conversation is a fundamentally bad thing” like it’s a fact, indicating you believe this, but you’ve been given the tools to avoid giving others the power to moderate your conversation and you have chosen not to use them. This means that you are saying “I have chosen to do a thing that I believe is fundamentally bad.” Why would anyone trust such a person?

    For that matter, is this even a discussion? People clearly don’t agree with you and you haven’t explained your reasoning. If a moderator’s actions are logged and visible to users, and users have the choice of engaging under the purview of a moderator or moving elsewhere, what’s the problem?

    It is deeply bad that…

    Why?

    Yes, I know, trolls, etc…

    In other words, “let me ignore valid arguments for why moderation is needed.”

    But such action turns any conversation into a bad joke.

    It doesn’t.

    And anybody who trusts a moderator is a fool.

    In places where moderator’s actions are unlogged and they’re not accountable to the community, sure - and that’s true on mainstream social media. Here, moderators are performing a service for the benefit of the community.

    Have you never heard the phrase “Trust, but verify?”

    Find a better way.

    This is the better way.



  • Yes, I know, trolls etc. But such action turns any conversation into a bad joke. And anybody who trusts a moderator is a fool.

    Not just trolls - there’s much worse content out there, some of which can get you sent to jail in most (all?) jurisdictions.

    And even ignoring that, many users like their communities to remain focused on a given topic. Moderation allows this to happen without requiring a vetting process prior to posting. Maybe you don’t want that, but most users do.

    Find a better way.

    Here’s an option: you can code a fork or client that automatically parses the modlog, finds comments and posts that have been removed, and makes them visible in your feed. You could even implement the ability to reply by hosting replies on a different instance or community.

    For you and anyone who uses your fork, it’ll be as though they were never removed.

    Do you have issues with the above approach?


  • As a user, you can:

    • Review instance and community rules prior to participating
    • Review the moderator logs to confirm that moderation activities have been in line with the rules
    • If you notice a discrepancy, e.g., over-moderation, you can hold the mods accountable and draw attention to it or simply choose not to engage in that instance or community
    • Host your own instance
    • Create communities in an existing instance or your own instance

    If you host your own instance and communities within that instance, then at that point, you have full control, right? Other instances can de-federate from yours.


  • I recommend a used 3090, as that has 24 GB of VRAM and generally can be found for $800ish or less (at least when I last checked, in February). It’s much cheaper than a 4090 and while admittedly more expensive than the inexpensive 24GB Nvidia Tesla card (the P40?) it also has much better performance and CUDA support.

    I have dual 3090s so my performance won’t translate directly to what a single GPU would get, but it’s pretty easy to find stats on 3090 performance.









  • If they do the form correctly, then it’s just an extra step for you to confirm. One flow I’ve seen that would accomplish this is:

    1. You enter your address into a form that can be auto-filled
    2. You submit the address
    3. If the address validates, the site saves the form and shows you the address in a more readable format. You can click Edit to make changes.
    4. If the address doesn’t validate, the site displays a modal asking you to confirm the address. If another address they were able to look up looks similar, it suggests you use that instead. It’s one click to continue editing, to use the suggested address, or to use what you originally entered.

    That said, if you’re regularly seeing the wrong address pop up it may be worth submitting a request to get your address added to the database they use. That process will differ depending on your location and the address verification service(s) used by the sites that are causing issues. If you’re in the US, a first step is to confirm that the USPS database has your address listed correctly, as their database is used by some downstream address verification services like “Melissa.” I believe that requires a visit to your local post office, but you may be able to fix it by calling your region’s USPS Address Management System office.




  • Good point!

    If OP is hourly, those 3 hours should be billed as work - probably under a generic HR-related category if one is available.

    If OP is salaried exempt, then this would fall under “doing any work at all” (all that’s needed to be paid for the day) and if sick time is tracked by day and not by hour, then OP doesn’t need to use one. If it’s tracked hourly then OP should make sure to only use 5 sick hours (or less, depending on how long the work-related conversations took) and depending on employer policies may not need to use any sick time at all.

    This also cut into the time OP could have been using to rest. It would be very reasonable for OP to need an extra day to recover, as a result.



  • Generally, usage of the term “gentrification” refers to the improvement of neighborhoods - or other places where people live, like apartment complexes - and, due to increased cost of living, the displacement of the people who used to live there. Displacement of less wealthy current residents when gentrification occurs is so common that it’s implied. If it weren’t, people wouldn’t have such low opinions of gentrification.

    If a forest has been gentrified, therefore, then - if you interpret “gentrified” in the same way - it follows that people who have been living there have been displaced. And since those people were living in a forest - not in a cabin in a forest - they’re necessarily homeless. Since OP didn’t say that they were building houses or apartments in the forest, that would mean that the wealthier people who displaced them were also homeless.

    Since the context was another commenter calling “gentrified forest” a cursed phrase, I don’t think I’m alone in thinking that.