PhilipTheBucket
@PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
- Comment on Vote manipulation bots using sh.itjust.works? 3 days ago:
Got it. So just trying to spam in favor of their pet project. Ty
- Comment on Vote manipulation bots using sh.itjust.works? 3 days ago:
I kind of do too… anyone have a link to what it was before it was deleted? I am curious.
@admins thank you for squashing this ❤️
- Comment on UK-US TRADE: “Caving into a bully is not something to be celebrated”, campaigners say 5 days ago:
Being friendly with Trump will not undo their desperation. Their reward for selling their honor will be nothing. Columbia University learned this lesson recently.
- Comment on UK-US TRADE: “Caving into a bully is not something to be celebrated”, campaigners say 5 days ago:
I don’t know the details of the deal, and I don’t know anything about Keir Starmer, but I know hearing Keir Starmer kissing Trump’s ass on the phone made me stop taking him seriously about anything.
- Submitted 5 days ago to technology@lemmy.zip | 0 comments
- Comment on !debatebro@ponder.cat - Debate me bro 5 days ago:
Hm.
Here are my thoughts:
I don’t really care about picking the better debater. That actually seems kind of antithetical: In a perfect world, the truth should win, and it doesn’t really matter if someone’s more “skillful” or forceful or just willing to type and berate more. Actually one of the things that bothers me about the propaganda on Lemmy is that it is often (not always) pretty skillful at changing minds, independent of the validity of the content.
I do like the idea of formalizing it a little bit. Having a limited number of “rounds” is an interesting idea. Right now, one of the issues I see that I’m trying to deal with with this thing is the strategy of kind of blathering endlessly or constantly changing the subject, not really being responsive but talking without end. The current iteration of the bot will call you out on it when that happens, but it might be kind of better if it’s your chance and once it’s done it is done. Kind of like court: If the opponent raises a point, and you just ignore it, than by default they “win” that point and you don’t even have a chance to go back and correct it.
I don’t even necessarily like the idea of picking a “winner.” To me, that’s up to each reader, and often the truth is kind of in the middle or they are both valid arguments. It’s more of kind of a pass/fail on both sides: Are you being reasonable? There are a lot of strategies that look really reasonable, or at worst just like aggressively asserting your side, but if you’re good at using them you can literally make almost anything sound plausible. So, if neither side is doing that, then it’s fine! They just had a conversation, responded reasonably to each other’s points, everything moved forward. I am more on the side of “what truth did we figure out” as opposed to needing to assign a winner and a loser mechanically to each debate.
Yeah, modern day political TV debate is nonsense. Actually, even this format of debate in the video you sent, I don’t completely like. The woman is clearly full of shit. They’re setting up this format structure, this respect, this kind of “objective” format, and then they are welcoming someone to take an honored position within it that doesn’t deserve the respect. I didn’t watch much beyond the beginning, but I can almost guarantee that she is lying and rationalizing, and her underlying position is “red man good blue man bad.” I don’t really know how you can expose that in a taking turns long form “debate” format, that’s just my reaction seeing her. I feel like having something like Jon Stewart interviewing her and challenging her, still being fair and letting her talk but not letting her get away with bullshit, would be better than implicitly pretending that she is upholding the social contract when she is not.
Maybe I am wrong, that’s just my snap judgement seeing the first little bit. Actually, setting up a framework where being unfriendly to that kind of dishonesty is allowed and sanctioned, but being dishonest or shifty in your debating is “not allowed” in the same way that overt incivility is “not allowed” currently on Lemmy, is part of my goal here.
Those are my thoughts about it, in no real coherent order, it just took me a little time to watch a piece of the video and get back to you.
- Comment on !debatebro@ponder.cat - Debate me bro 6 days ago:
Well, but you do though. Making comments and getting the respect and agreement of the people in the community is how you get influence.
I really don’t like this Lemmy thing where certain people are empowered by the software to control the communications of other people (beyond just removing spam or abuse or something). I feel like you don’t need that. I really don’t feel like you or me or anybody being put in a position where they can “influence” someone else’s communications unilaterally is really necessary to a good community. Often it is counterproductive. Maybe that’s the issue, you just activated one of my pet peeves in a way that has nothing to do with what you want to do.
Can you tell me more about what you want to do, how you would want to apply Oxford scoring and such? Maybe that could be a whole separate community / idea, I was envisioning this one as being a lot more basic, just can people talk with each other without blatantly mischaracterizing the other person’s points or ignoring questions or etc. But IDK, maybe I just don’t understand the basic concept even yet.
- Comment on !debatebro@ponder.cat - Debate me bro 6 days ago:
Do, or do not. There is no try.
- Comment on !debatebro@ponder.cat - Debate me bro 6 days ago:
Yeah, I’d be happy to post it up along with some of the other little tools I use here, that’s a good idea.
- Comment on !debatebro@ponder.cat - Debate me bro 6 days ago:
Nothing is stopping you from making that tool without mod powers…
I generally don’t even touch the mod buttons except in exceptional circumstances; I don’t expect that this place would be any different. Maybe events will change my mind but I would hope that a lot of this stuff can get worked out with talking and culture, as opposed to by removing comments.
- Comment on !debatebro@ponder.cat - Debate me bro 6 days ago:
Ooh… that’s a good point. Any discussion which gets fed into the debate bot will get fed into OpenAI’s API, which means it’ll be used for training. (I trust their “do not use this data” checkbox not at all.) And I think you’re right that having that happen will be a deal-breaker for most people and just a totally different thing than the purpose of the community as stated.
Let me think on that a little more. I won’t do anything with the tool until I can look into self-hosting it or something. I think consider it as purely a human community until further discussion, then.
- Submitted 6 days ago to newcommunities@lemmy.world | 12 comments
- Submitted 1 week ago to technology@lemmy.zip | 0 comments
- Comment on Has Reddit acknowledged the existence of Lemmy? 1 week ago:
See my other comment. I wasn’t saying at all that Lemmy was a US-only thing, I was just trying to say that that the whole network is probably enough of a niche platform that it’s not worth the substantial effort that would be involved in trying to interfere too much with US users on non-US instances. Big instances in the US, they can fuck with, and so why not (and especially since the Take it Down act is structured to empower individuals to go after them without the government needing to spend resources on it.) Instances outside the US, never mind, we have bigger fish to fry.
- Comment on Has Reddit acknowledged the existence of Lemmy? 1 week ago:
Oh, I am sure most of Lemmy is outside the US. I was saying that, in general, Lemmy (and even Mastodon) is probably too small and difficult a problem for them to want to attack through any systematic method. I think, if anything, they’ll just surveil and punish individual US-based users as opposed to trying to shut down or block instances outside the US.
It’s one of the advantages of ActivityPub services. Bluesky will be easy for them to attack at the root and I fully expect them to do so, whereas for truly federated services I think the reaction will be “ah what the hell too much trouble, how much harm can they really do.”
- Comment on Has Reddit acknowledged the existence of Lemmy? 1 week ago:
No, they will just make server operators liable for obeying any conservative who has an issue with any content there and can make the right format of complaint.
I suspect that instances outside the US will simply be too small a factor to bother with. Small, scattered opposition that is subject to deliberate trolling and disruption at any scale anyone feels like deploying will simply not be worth bothering with.
This is all assuming if a big internet-censorship operation starts (which it seems likely that it will). I think it will mainly focus on large based-in-the-US companies which host large services. Notably among them will be Bluesky. The only impact it will have on anything ActivityPub-based is that they will shut down or muzzle some big instances inside the US, and then, the point being made, they will probably move on, leaving instances outside the US to do whatever they want. That’s my prediction.
Oh, also, Palantir’s surveillance will incorporate people’s comments into their overall dossier on the person, regardless of where their instance is, which means that anyone who maintains a big presence on an ActivityPub network will be putting themselves at person risk of neo-deportation to somewhere they can never get free from. It will still be legal to do, though. Sure.
- Comment on The Convoluted Way Intel’s 386 Implemented Its Registers 1 week ago:
I knew it, man.
I learned MIPS assembly first, and it was like the registers were all a baseball team, with everyone trained and doing their part to try to get the job done.
When I learned about x86 assembly it was like the registers were a tiny band of wacky misfits who were going around in a van trying to solve mysteries.
- Code segment: fine
- Data segment: It’s weird that you even do “segments” but fine
- Extra segment: …
- F segment: Please stop
- G segment: Stop it
- Terrorists and criminals misusing ‘dark’ drones could cause carnage, expert warnswww.independent.co.uk ↗Submitted 1 week ago to technology@lemmy.zip | 0 comments
- Submitted 1 week ago to technology@lemmy.zip | 1 comment
- Submitted 1 week ago to science@mander.xyz | 1 comment
- Submitted 1 week ago to technology@lemmy.zip | 0 comments
- Submitted 1 week ago to technology@lemmy.zip | 0 comments
- Submitted 2 weeks ago to technology@lemmy.zip | 4 comments
- Submitted 2 weeks ago to technology@lemmy.zip | 0 comments
- Comment on What is Docker? 2 weeks ago:
Are you saying I was being silly?
You might be onto something
- Submitted 2 weeks ago to technology@lemmy.zip | 0 comments
- Comment on What is Docker? 2 weeks ago:
Okay, so way back when, Google needed a way to install and administer 500 new instances of whatever web service they had going on without it being a nightmare. So they made a little tool to make it easier to spin up random new stuff easily and scriptably.
So then the whole rest of the world said “Hey Google’s doing that and they’re super smart, we should do that too.” So they did. They made Docker, and for some reason that involved Y Combinator giving someone millions of dollars for reasons I don’t really understand.
So anyway, once Docker existed, nobody except Google and maybe like 50 other tech companies actually needed to do anything that it was useful for (and 48 out of those 50 are too addled by layoffs and nepotism to actually use Borg / K8s/ Docker (don’t worry they’re all the the same thing) for its intended purpose.) They just use it so their tech leads can have conversations at conferences and lunches where they make it out like anyone who’s not using Docker must be an idiot, which is the primary purpose for technology as far as they’re concerned.
But anyway in the meantime a bunch of FOSS software authors said “Hey this is pretty convenient, if I put a setup script inside a Dockerfile I can literally put whatever crazy bullshit I want into it, like 20 times more than even the most certifiably insane person would ever put up with in a list of setup instructions, and also I can pull in 50 gigs of dependencies if I want to of which 2,421 have critical security vulnerabilities and no one will see because they’ll just hit the button and make it go.”
And so now everyone uses Docker and it’s a pain in the ass to make any edits to the configuration or setup and it’s all in this weird virtualized box, and the “from scratch” instructions are usually out of date.
The end
- Comment on Suggestions for people on Fosstodon considering moving 2 weeks ago:
on the 50 communities here on lemmy he mods to silence discussion that doesn’t align with his views.
Who is he on Lemmy? I didn’t know he was here too. Do you have some examples of silencing discussion that doesn’t align with his views?
I’m aware of reports of him doing messed-up moderation on Reddit, which is sus. If it sounded like I was in his corner I am not. I’m just saying like you were that more clarity would be better.
- Comment on Suggestions for people on Fosstodon considering moving 2 weeks ago:
Yeah. The instant I read “racist, anti-immigrant and anti-LGBTQ+ views in a position of power” I strongly suspected that this is some bullshit.
IDK man. I’ve heard bad things about carrotcypher before, I have not looked into them one way or another. It’s sort of dicey both ways: I’m paranoid enough to be wary of a moderator who seems to be abusing their position, and also paranoid enough to be wary of a sudden hue and cry that a particular moderator needs to be removed because they are “problematic” in poorly-specified ways.
Just taking a cursory look at it: Mike’s defense of carrotcypher seems pretty credible. He looked at all carrotcypher’s past moderation actions and when he did them, and decided that it all looked fine. The criticism seemed a little unhinged. The one link that I saw at a quick glance was a link to a single one-line reddit comment, saying that it called CNN propaganda when it didn’t, and saying he favored deporting Mahmoud Khalil when he didn’t.
Then there was a bunch of stuff like:
this is a wildly disgusting person that you welcome into your space. i know that as a trans woman i cannot trust any fosstodon user while knowing what kind of person you happily let on your staff, whether theyre acting on those beliefs or not. it’s not safe for our mostly queer userbase to talk to your fascist-harboring userbase.
It would have been much easier to just link to some of the messed-up things, instead of asserting them and getting all upset and using the “I’m queer so don’t you DARE argue with me or you will be a ‘problematic’ person too” card.
IDK, I’m not decided on carrotcypher specifically and he might be a big POS and I just haven’t seen it yet. I just wish there was more light and less heat about why he is a problem.
- Submitted 2 weeks ago to technology@lemmy.zip | 1 comment