gressen

joined 2 years ago
[–] gressen@lemm.ee 2 points 4 days ago (6 children)

I was with you until you mixed nuclear into the post. Chernobyl was a series of human errors and bad decisions. We need nuclear to fix our energy issues and slapping the name onto a separate issue is dishonest and makes me doubt your intentions.

[–] gressen@lemm.ee 3 points 6 days ago

Mandatorier.

[–] gressen@lemm.ee 8 points 1 week ago

Thanks, it means cheaper cars for the rest of us.

[–] gressen@lemm.ee 11 points 1 week ago

It's a single person project.

SKWAWKBOX is regulated by IMPRESS, the UK’s only Leveson-compliant, independent regulator and has received a renewed 100/100 award from news reliability service Newsguard.

About the SKWAWKBOX

[–] gressen@lemm.ee 39 points 2 weeks ago (10 children)

It there ANY reason that a ghost fleet exists other than avoiding EU law?

[–] gressen@lemm.ee 0 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)
[–] gressen@lemm.ee 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Except moving production to US means giving away the only thing that keeps US interested in protecting Taiwan.

[–] gressen@lemm.ee 1 points 3 weeks ago

Please remember that it is a free service and like with most free stuff you still pay, just not with money. What they earn is your financial information - every transaction you do is logged and used to better target actions toward you.

Ultimately you get convenience and they get an angle to better work you in the future. The stuff you buy, the causes you support, etc., all is recorded and analysed to better understand how to drive you to spend more on shit you don't want in the first place.

I think that moving away from Google wallet is a good decision but getting into the same abusive relationship with another company is not.

 

In the screenshot you can see that there is currently one rising community overloading my post feed. I assume this is happening to many users. I understand that I can block the community but that's not really what I want. I think that this problem could be solved by introducing a mechanism to dynamically limit the number of such posts based on user preferences. For example I could set this community to appear less often and an algorithm could apply this preference to my feed order. I know that the proverbial algorithms used by major social networks are frowned upon. That happens for a good reason - they are opaque, proprietary and often show signs of bad intention. They are used for political and social influence, to silence opposing voices and a whole array of other nefarious goals like playing of people's fear, outrage, etc. The thing I'm suggesting would have to be transparent by design and fully optional. That's a social media "algorithm" I'd like to use. I'd like to hear what other people think about this idea.