geekwithsoul

Interesting take. I look at it as less “anti-medieval” and more anti-government. Gygax was a libertarian and it grew out of wargaming. Gygax just wanted a world where he could fight dragons and didn’t bother to do the world building of an economic or political system. I think this was more out of disinterest in the topics rather than as a political stance.

“…insinuating that only bots are down voting…” (emphasis added)

No, they’re not saying “only”, they’re saying there may be bots doing some of the downvoting. E.g. probably based off IPs, client strings, or something else.

That’s not what he was saying.

Yeah, go see his response in another part of this thread to my request to provide some constructive feedback if you haven’t already. It was all just the same bad faith misinformation about the bot and the data source. I even linked the sources for how it actually worked and no reply, just downvotes.

Currently the bot’s media ratings come from just some guy, who is unaccountable and has an obvious rightwing bias.

Wow! Talk about misinformation!!! https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/about/

Or maybe you think they were bought and paid for by some nefarious source? Nope…

Media Bias/Fact Check funding comes from reader donations, third-party advertising, and membership subscriptions. We use third-party advertising to prevent influence and bias, as we do not select the ads you see displayed. Ads are generated based on your search history, cookies, and the current web page content you are viewing. We receive $0 from corporations, foundations, organizations, wealthy investors, or advocacy groups. See details on funding.

…I would suggest making the ratings instead come from an open sourced and crowdsourced system. A system where everyone could give their inputs and have transparency, similar to an upvote/downvote system.

Such a system would take many hours to design and maintain, it is not something I personally am willing to contribute, nor would I ask it of any volunteers.

Thank you for at least providing an iota of something constructive. It’s an interesting idea, and there is academic research that shows it might be possible. But the problem is then in a world already filled with state- and corpo-sponsored organized misinformation campaigns, how does any crowdsourced solution avoid capture and infiltration from the very sources of misinformation it should be assessing? Look at the feature on Twitter and how often that is abused. Then you’d need a fact checker for your fact checker.

“universally destructive to understanding”

So what you’re saying is that no one derives any use from the bot? Wow, with that kind of omniscience, I’d expect we could just ask you to judge every news source. Win-win for everyone I suppose if you’re up for it.

Now “generally destructive” would probably be better wording for us mere mortals, but stills seems to be a wildly generalized statement. Or maybe “inadequately precise” would be more realistic, but then that really takes the wind out of the sails to ban it, doesn’t?

Because this is the first thing I think I’ve seen you post and blocking everything you disagree with seems sort of stupid?

I think the bot has issues, but I hardly agree that it’s posting misinformation. Incomplete? Imperfect? You bet. But that’s not “misinformation” in any commonly understood meaning. I think the intent of providing additional context on information sources is laudable.

As someone with such a distaste for misinformation, how would you suggest fixing it? That’s a much more useful discussion than “BAN THE THING I PERSONALLY AND SUBJECTIVELY THINK IS BAD!!!” You obviously think misinformation is a problem, so why not suggest a solution?

Just block it if you don’t like it?

I mean, kinda yeah?

Why does that sound like the voice of experience?

From the article I linked with the item in the context of other finds at the same site…

Evidently it really was probably a cucumber? http://artisticlicenseorwhyitrustnoone.blogspot.com/2022/11/bullshit-memes-8-ancient-egyptian.html?m=1

tl;dr - was found with other model food, probably meant to sustain someone in the afterlife

For various reasons, I’ve gone to political rallies for a good portion of my life. They can be really fun or incredibly boring. There’s a sense of community you get at a concert or church service, and at the good ones, it can be quite a charge to be sharing the moment with others. At the bad ones, it can seem shrill or too amped or on the opposite side being dull as dishwater.

tl;dr - basically like a school pep rally for adults, but without the drawback of being required

Not really sure your premise holds. I mean, sure a bunch of tradwives and their husbands might get upset when a woman declines to have kids, but in general I don’t think most people care. I’ve got kids but most of my friends don’t and I can’t imagine anyone caring one way or another.

Never said it didn’t. Doesn’t change the fact that Microsoft is notoriously worse by every metric and because of its position in the market is far more potentially damaging. Almost like if you sell an OS as something that can be trusted to run mission critical applications, you probably shouldn’t phone it in when it comes to securing that OS.

A third party vendor whose entire business model is predicated on the fact that security is such an afterthought at Microsoft that enterprise customers need to resort to this kind of crap for a bare minimum of security.

I had a Reddit account I opened in July 2009 that was fairly active and I deleted all my posts and comments when I left - mainly because I felt I couldn’t trust the company that ran it to be good stewards of the content and decided they weren’t entitled to it. All the stuff that’s happened in the last year has just reinforced that conclusion.

Reddit makes money off the content everyone contributes (as well as the hard work of so many unpaid folks doing moderation) and that’s not a model I choose to support. Some of the conversations I was involved in had really help information on a number of topics, and while I’m sad that information isn’t still available to others, I think the overall good is better served by not supporting a site so at odds with my beliefs.

I was in my early 20s and was visiting a friend’s house. His wife had a friend visiting that I’d never met. We were introduced and the first words she said to me were “Do you know your features are wasted on a guy?” and then went on to provide specific details.

We were married a year later. And that was 30 years ago.

Believing accusers should always be the first step. But when independent organizations investigate and find that accuser’s story is contradicted by known facts and not corroborated by other witnesses or any evidence whatsoever, then no, we shouldn’t still believe them.

It’s Tara Reade first off. Secondly she defected to Russia in the company of a known Russian intelligence asset whom she termed a “friend.” So excuse everyone who thinks her story might be suspect.