harmonea

“Clobber” implies violence, which is somehow even less elegant than the standard phrase that the haphazard “cobble” implies. Given the shitshow of X so far, clobber probably works better even if it’s not the usual way to phrase this at all.

I have a clone recipe for Chili’s chicken enchilada soup that I love making. Don’t do it often though as it’s like 50% cheese…

Oh I see.

It would have been nice to have that in the post description for those of us who aren’t as willing to hand over data (even anonymized) for certain uses.

Thanks for locating it!

What’s the purpose of your research? Curiosity? A student thesis? A professional paper? Are you a dev actively working on improving the fediverse?

Okay but seriously, what is this pedantry even? I wasn’t trying to put forth some all-encompassing thesis of every reason people might pirate, nor do I accept that “needs to be in on all the current memes” is some reason one is entitled to media. And neither point has anything to do with the discussion we’re having with OP.

Bizarre as heck tangent.

Your comparison is still really, really unclear. Are you comparing the consumption of “extra products” for vegans vs vegetarians to the consumption of “extra products” for piracy?

If so: Do you really not understand that limited physical demand differs from unlimited digital demand? If a vegetarian eats, idk, an egg a day… that’s an extra 365 eggs that had to be produced and were paid for, thus supporting the industry, when you could have hypothetically decreased demand and possibly caused a drop in production. Whereas the media consumed by pirates incur neither profit nor cost (in that if we assume they would never have paid for those goods in the first place, it isn’t a lost sale). There is no production cost for there to be 1 sold copy and 1 pirated copy vs 1 sold copy only.

Though tbh, I’m just devil’s advocating the vegan position here. I really think you had a handful of bad encounters with militant vegans and assume the majority of the threadiverse thinks like that. And, well… we don’t? What even is this “lemmy culture”? The amount of confusion and responses that aren’t addressing the point you meant to make should show you that most of us are not engaging with this on the line of thought you assumed we would.

Hey man, I’m willing to be honest about what I do. I’m not entitled to consume that media just because it exists, and I’m not going to beat around the bush about that.

I don’t really understand why you’re comparing these two things? One is a group of people refraining from consumption of certain goods for personal reasons - health, ethics, climate impact, whatever. The other is a group of people consuming arguably more goods than they (we tbh) deserve since we’re not willing or able to pay for it for one reason or another.

A better analogy would be comparing piracy to… I don’t know, a veg-eater of whatever type who still enjoys the taste of bacon and resorts to stealing it because it’s better to hurt the meat industry than to pay? It’s a product that person really doesn’t really need and absolutely would have never paid for, yet the person still wants it and obtains it in a way that hurts the industry.

(The analogy doesn’t hold up since stealing physical goods has a different impact than distributing digital copies, but it’s the best I’ve got off the cuff)

E: okay, after reading your other comments, I’m both confident this didn’t address the point you wanted and confident I don’t really understand your deal well enough to do so. Both of these groups have some members who have a problem with industry practices and others who are into their chosen lifestyle for other reasons. It seems like you’ve made some odd decisions about which groups are most prevalent among each and are framing your premise around that, and I don’t think we’re going to see eye-to-eye on it when the premise is Like This.

Or are you trying to say veganism should be more widely accepted because “DRM is wrong” is roughly equivalent to “animal suffering is wrong” re: “industry bad”?

How does the change do nothing to combat those interactions when they fall under the $1 sub requirement? The idea is that allegedly bots won’t pay, so they won’t be able to do those actions anymore.

Corrected archive link - OP’s is missing a character so it’s not working

Corrected archive link - OP’s is missing a character so it’s not working

You said you want good faith discussions, but you preemptively dismissed one of the biggest answers because you don’t think it’s a good solution. Then you have people here disagreeing with you, explaining why, and pointing to examples of it being done successfully, and you continue to completely dismiss a donation as nothing more than a “thank you” - how is this in any way a good faith discussion if any opposing viewpoint is immediately met with this kind of “YOU’RE the problem” response?

I do understand your frustration in those cases in which donations fail, but it seems like you’re not willing to meet us halfway and acknowledge that sometimes, donations succeed, and not by accident or luck. There’s data there - test cases we could be picking apart and seeing what critical mass needs to be reached before an instance can reliably secure donations and what we can do for admins until their instances reach that threshold. But you’re just dismissing it as nonviable even though it clearly works for a lot of places.

That is not good faith.

Can’t believe you forgot the usage limits on how many tweets you can view and how many DMs you can send. I think some of those might have been walked back, but I know people who were holding back from discord because twitter DMs were enough that now rarely go there.

Also all sorts of API functionality has been killed off - embeds, RSS, bots, etc

I guess either they’re slow or no one on kbin.social subscribes to them to let them filter into the All feed, then, since I don’t keep the NSFW filter toggled on.

Only 22 so far.

Mostly overly spammy meme or lolrandum hotspots (196) and discussion/meme communities and magazines centered on demographics I’m not part of and conditions I don’t have (no hate for those groups ofc, just leaving them alone and letting them do their thing while also pruning content I fundamentally can’t engage with).

I used to block non-English communities and magazines, but kbin’s language filter started working quite well sometime after I signed up, so I removed all those.

I think my instance probably defederated porn since I never see it? Meh. I have nothing against it whatsoever, but there’s a time and a place - I have a separate lemmynsfw account for when I want that.

You snark, but unironically yes? Obviously?

If you think the professors that will be left will be the highest quality instead of the longest tenured, you’re being willfully ignorant. And that loss will ripple down through every generation those passionate and skilled educators would have taught. Plus, “the olds” or whatever have families (which include young people) that would be suffering even more directly to boot.

E: I see we’re doing the whole “disregard the overall point and only snark about the lowest hanging fruit you can intentionally take out of context” thing. Into the void with you, redditor.

But do we really want to maintain the current status quo?

I think if you read my comment again, you’d find I acknowledge things need to change, I just think your proposed solution is bad.

I can imagine ways to accomplish these goals more gradually, with less complete and utter destruction, but I don’t think someone who proposed something so extreme from the word go really wants to discuss the moderate stance, so I’ll leave it with you as a thought exercise.

You’re talking about changes that will take a generation or more to settle. While these things are in flux, professors will lose their jobs, research grants and budgets will be gutted, and educational assets will be liquidized (imagine museums being sold off to private collections - this is incredibly damaging to the collective knowledge base). Meanwhile, the generations that wait for prices to come down will be left having to educate themselves on the internet, which not everyone has the motivational drive to do or the ability to spot which sources are providing reliable, accurate material they can learn from.

I get that something’s gotta give, but banning loans altogether ain’t it unless your entire goal is to turn Gen A’s moniker into Ass-Backwards.

I was only discussing the definition of a disorder. But if you want to get into sophistry and impotent political venting, sure. If 60% of people can’t make connections with others or hold down a job because of their mental health, I question anyone who would call that anything but a disordered society, and that includes you saying it’s “the order of things.”

That said, this is an informal self-reported poll with a possibly exaggerated headline. It’s entirely possible the actual disorder most of GenZ has is self-diagnosis and identity culture, in which if one doesn’t have a disorder or three, one becomes the weirdo in a group.

I found this line from the article especially telling:

The survey also showed that 2 out of 5 go to therapy and 53 percent have gotten professional help for mental health at some point.

Notice how 53% is less than 60? And we’d have to assume each and every one of the 53% was diagnosed with an anxiety disorder on those “at some point” visits to come close to supporting the headline’s claim.

I think if measurable socioeconomic markers supported the 60% number, it would be bigger news. Are they more anxious, sure. But again… anxiety does not imply anxiety disorder. As it stands, publishing inaccurate headlines like this makes people take the real issues – and there ARE a lot of big, pervasive societal issues at play – less seriously.

(And because I know y’all need to hear it: if you, dear reader, have a professional diagnosis, none of this is talking about you.)

The key word is “disorder” though.

Everyone experiences anxiety from time to time, just like everyone has minor bouts of depression or invasive compulsions. Some non-disordered might even still experience them often.

Not everyone experiences these feelings pervasively to a degree it prevents them from socioeconomic success (making friends, going outside, finding and keeping a job, etc).