That’s exactly what I did on Reddit, I’d only look at subreddits that I subscribed to. The only reason I’m here is because Reddit 180d on their API support and killed third party apps.

I highly doubt the two are related. He could just leave the guy in prison and still get the money.

0 critical thinking

Wow, that’s… quite dismissive of the maker of the best selling current console. The Nintendo Switch has sold more than twice the number as the PlayStation 5, which has sold about 3x more than the XBox Series consoles. If we look at total game sales, most of the top ones are Nintendo first-party or Nintendo exclusive titles. In fact, the only platform-exclusive titles on that list are Nintendo (except Gary’s mod on PC), and Nintendo has a disproportionate percentage of those most popular titles.

Mario and Sonic at the Olympics

Made by SEGA, not Nintendo.

Right. He went to the Libertarian Party national convention and promised to pardon him, and this is him making good on that promise. It doesn’t cost him anything and it potentially gets him a little more support from the libertarian-leaning people in Congress.

The Fediverse isn’t a democracy though. Admins self-select, and moderators are merely those who made the community first or were selected by those who made the community (or maybe replaced by the admins). Hosting a big instance costs quite a bit of money, so it’ll naturally attract people with some kind of agenda. Those in charge will self-select their users whether intentionally or unintentionally.

The discourse on Lemmy (don’t know about the rest of the Fediverse) largely happens on a handful of instances, and I think that’s to be expected from the above. We’d probably be better off if we actually has democracy, but I think that’s the wrong metaphor to use since we’re not restricted to a geographical area like we are on real life.

I think the solution is distributed systems. Instead of a handful of people running things, everyone should take part in running things. Instead of a handful of people moderating things, everyone should be a moderator, and users should be able to select which moderators they trust and which they don’t. Internet services can do things that physical services can’t, and I think we should while explore that (and I’m doing just that on my own projects).

The difference is that Nintendo tends to do a pretty good job with it, whereas Ubisoft… doesn’t. I’m guessing the problem is largely with management and timelines, since Nintendo seems to wait until the game is ready whereas other AAA just ship whatever is ready by the deadline.

And yes I did enjoy hunting all 400 flags from the first game and the feathers in the 2nd.

Really? There were way too many and they weren’t really in interesting places. I would much prefer if they had <50 and put them in cool places, but I picked up a bunch just by following normal story progression.

I have no problem with the developers, I have a problem with the people who make decisions. AC needs actual story progression and an ending. Maybe they can make a spinoff where you can play from the Knights Templar perspective and still reuse much of the same formula, but with very different gameplay.

Likewise for other IPs, they need to move on.

I don’t buy their games anymore, but I certainly don’t trash the devs themselves, they’re just building what they’re paid to build. The problem is the choices made by those in charge, not the devs.

It’s okay for what it is, but it’s limited to communities and posts cached on the instance. And search engines are often worse.

I refuse to accept the false dichotomy. I hope I’m not alone.

Sure there is, it’s right off the American Ocean (not to be confused with the West American Ocean).

I’ve gotten that here, which is incredibly surprising because search on Lemmy kinda sucks. I haven’t been here a decade, but I did get some replies from a year old comment I made.

Actual terms:

• conspiracy of ravens
• flight of pigeons

Ravens are smart, but I really don’t think they’re planning anything nefarious. Pigeons on the other hand…

Whether you care about down votes on your own posts is irrelevant. But down votes on topics/categories absolutely steers the conversation and is precisely the concern we’re discussing here.

People love to rail against big tech companies for silencing certain groups through moderation or tweaks to the algorithm, but look the other way when we have tyranny of the majority doing the same thing through down votes and general pressure from the community to drive away dissent. It’s the same idea, just different groups of people doing the silencing.

I don’t care about down votes on my posts either, but I do care about systematic down votes on posts with ideas that are not dangerous, just unpopular. We won’t progress without challenging the status quo, yet we humans love to group ourselves into tribes and cast out anyone who doesn’t conform.

My point is that Lemmy isn’t any better than other social media, it has the same problems, just a different status quo.

I agree it’s good data, but good data isn’t particularly useful if you don’t know how to interpret it. It seems to largely answer questions I don’t have, and finding relevant answers is a bit harder since the data is focused on datacenter use.

So I personally look for support quality first (very imprecise, but I look for anecdotes about good and bad customer experience) and avoid the capacities that seem to have consistently high failure rates and low average age in Backblaze data (e.g. 10TB drives). In the past, they largely used consumer drives (not even NAS drives), and now they largely use enterprise drives, neither of which I’m planning to buy anyway, so the main commonality between drives I’ll consider and drives they monitor are the platters, hence the focus on capacity.

I’m glad they publish it, I just think people misinterpret it more often than not.

I’ve been there and it’s way worse. In fact, I almost left Lemmy entirely when it seemed Lemmy.ml was going to remain the dominant instance, but the still bad but much less bad Lemmy.world seems to have taken over.

I’m not talking about right wingers, I’m talking about anything that seems different from the majority opinion on a given community. It could have absolutely nothing to do with marginalized groups, if it challenges the leftist/progressive agenda in any way, it gets downvoted or moderated away.

Examples:

• Trump pardon of Ross Ulbricht (Silk Road guy) - this was a libertarian agenda item, and completely goes against the conservative “War on Drugs,” yet so many push back on it; if Biden did the same, people would likely approve of it (“that poor kid was treated unjustly”)
• try discussing any form of government waste (there’s plenty, not $2T like Musk claims, but probably a few billion)
• TikTok - people claimed it was anti-China fear mongering when Trump initially suggested we ban it, then supported the ban when Biden admin supported it, and now are against softening the ban now that Trump is in power (that’s some serious political whiplash)

This isn’t tolerance vs intolerance, it’s tribalism, and the Fediverse just has different sets of tribes vs mainstream social media.

I’m not talking about intolerant speech, like disparaging marginalized groups or something, I’m talking about even mundane policy. Try agreeing with Trump on something and you’ll get the same tired “Nazi bar” reaction.

For example, try agreeing with the pardon of Ross Ulbricht, who was given a life sentence with no possibility of parole for hosting a website that facilitated relatively safe drug trade. He was a first time offender, there’s no evidence that he actually sold anything illegal or did anything violent, and he acted on the philosophical idea that consenting, peaceful adults should be able to trade things freely (i.e. he wasn’t in a cartel or anything). But because he was pardoned by Trump, people jump to the conclusion that it must somehow be bad. If Biden (or Harris) did the exact same, it would get positive responses and people would likely assume it was somehow good. This has absolutely nothing to do with either side here, and if anything, it leans liberal/progressive, but because a conservative did it, it’s automatically bad (he only did it because he made a deal with libertarians to try to get their vote).

It’s the same kind of tribalist nonsense we see on the right.

And to be clear, this isn’t a “both sides, lol” argument, it’s commentary about tribalism in general. If something sounds sufficiently different from what we’re comfortable with, we reject it without further consideration. This is more extreme on the more popular instances (e.g. Lemmy world), which seem to be a lightning rod for this type of behavior, and my best argument is that people comfortable with group think flock to larger instances, whereas people interested in combating it flock to smaller instances.

Eh, they’re just doing their jobs. The real problem here is the judge and the laws on the books.

Sadly, yes. It’s important to know your audience.