I'm gonna start using times when I've articulated what I have to say, and someone clearly wants to get into a pointless and repetitious back-and-forth about it, as a good chance to link to activist organizations that people can join to make a good positive difference.
Here's Bernie Sanders's group; they seem pretty effective.
I subscribe to !trendingcommunities@feddit.nl which I find rather nice
mbin also has a sidebar "random communities" which is quite useful and I moderately often click on stuff from it
It feels like maybe there should be a federated-community option like !trendingcommunities@feddit.nl that's a little less awkward to make use of; IDK what that would look like though
Got it. Yeah, I reread it and it finally started to click; IDK why they wrote it in such a convoluted manner. So presumably the exact breakdown of voting is secret for some reason, but we know 10 members voted yes, and at least one of the permanent members was in the 5 that voted no -- so it goes nowhere now. I wonder who might have done the veto.
Lots of things work this way. You can play on a sports team and not bring too much to the table, and yet your team will win anyway. And yet, if everyone takes that attitude, then the team loses.
In fact, I would say that almost any real progress in the world depends on shared effort where each individual person who's part of it isn't individually critical to the outcome. Not wanting to take part in that kind of thing even when it's mind-bogglingly trivial (as voting is) is going to exclude you from the majority of good things you can do.
Is this an update to this story?
The way it's written made it sound like the application was voted down or stalled somehow, but it's not real clear, and it looks to me like there wasn't a specific objection made (which would usually mean it continues). Right? Or am I misunderstanding?
In European colonies during World War 2, they absolutely rounded up German civilians to put in semi-prison as a potential threat, once it came to a big shooting war in Europe.
Now I'm not saying that's exactly how it would play out under Thousand-Year Reich 2 Electric Boogaloo, but the point is that while the "people might associate me with the idiot gang" ship has already sailed under Bush 2 and under Trump, there are plenty of other more significant boats that haven't pushed out yet.
Yep
I used to be alarmed that people were being taken in by this stuff, but I now think the overwhelming majority of people saying it are just shill accounts. For a couple of different reasons, I think the percentage that are actual human accounts that sincerely believe it is extremely small.
I notice they've pivoted to just general nihilism about the US economy and the state of things as of a few weeks ago -- I think they might have concluded, as I did, that expressing this type of viewpoint and doing such a bad job of it and getting unanimously yelled at in the comments was actually having the opposite effect, highlighting to people how important it is to vote and how it absolutely makes a difference.
Could be that the DNC, like the bunch of entitled idiots that they are, assumed that the rules weren't important and people would make an exception for them.
that’s just not how recommendation algorithms work
I didn't say anything about how they work -- only that it shows you stuff it thinks you will like. Which is basically what you said.
However, the largest part is collaboration based filtering of content. That means, our user is put in a group based on his other preferences, let’s assume nerdy tech stuff, and then is shown content that he has not liked yet but his group of peers has, meaning he could probably like it too.
Yes, based on other user patterns and how it categorizes him, it thinks he could probably like soft core porn too. That is, in fact, how it works. Glad we agree.
In other words - he’s not the one in fault here, YOU are
Please, could everyone here stop clicking on this stuff so that OP don’t have to be associated with your filthy behavior, thank you.
So it's perfectly realistic that everyone could be clicking on soft core porn to feed the algorithm these ideas, in contrast to OP, who couldn't possibly be clicking on it? You've decided they're the one and only person who definitely isn't doing that when clearly someone is?
How could you write this hostile and condescending message when I actually made a specific point to highlight the exact point you're making ("It's not to say you're watching lots of soft core porn") in my message? If a little more succinctly. I wasn't blaming OP in any way, just explaining (just as you did) that the algorithm based on his viewing patterns is what decides what to show him.
Look how energetic she is
Tell me you're not a woman in Arizona who has an ectopic pregnancy, without telling me etc