First time hearing of a"demake", neat.

I agree with your sentiment regarding confusing syntax, however I think that confusion simply requires a calculated approach to dispell it.

It’s a prime example of why I use scripts as reminders as much as I use them functionally. I work out the syntax once… save it to an example script, then save myself 20 minutes of remembering by just $ cat ./path/to/script.sh and copying said syntax.

So if you can change your workflow such that learned things stay around as examples, I feel that you will pick it up much more quickly :)

awk

…for parsing the output of other commands quickly and simply. Then that parsed output can be used to create simple log messages or be passed as args to other scripts. Powerful.

It should be a legal requirement to have the options : Yes, No (and don’t ask again unless I go to options and explicitly change my mind).

There is a popup on OxygenOS (one of the reasons why I use LineageOS) Android whose options are “Agree” / “Exit”, with the implication that Exit just means they’ll ask you again tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, until you give in and Agree intentionally or accidentally.

I cannot help but draw a parallel in my mind between that behavior and rape.

You make a good point… In general, no one cares enough to track all this down. That is true. So that makes me wonder… who does/would care? So in a capitalist system, until the day the flow of money is impacted, generally nothing changes.

So if Reddit really is all (or vastly) bots, then aren’t advertisers paying to advertise to bots? And if that is true, at a certain point some metrics will show the yield on their investments is bunk.

Maybe that is how it collapses. I can hope.

I suppose the spirit of the question was “volume of content” vs “volume of accounts”. But there is a problem with loading a lot of content onto a singular account (from a bot detection PoV), and that is that it is easy to detect if an account is a bot if their post history is :

1. Metronomic (or)
2. Relentless in volume

To solve that problem (aka bot camouflage), the maintainers of said bots would use volume of accounts as a disguise mechanism. For that reason I assume that the volume of bot accounts has to scale with the volume of “pushed content” as, in my assessment… if I were running a bot network I’d want to be sure that my most-active bots were only 50-80% as prolific as known-human accounts… then simply distribute your content across those “strategically-limited-spam-bots”.

So as a TLDR I guess what I’m saying is that the volume of accounts has to scale with the volume of influence assuming you’d want your influence to appear organic.

The meta above this would be what, account creation monitoring? It’s an interesting conflict. Influence peddlers vs bot detectors.

What is gross to me is that platforms like Reddit appear to be catering to the influence peddlers. (or in the case of Facebook and Cambridge Analytica… allying with and giving birth to said influence peddlers to the political gain of Zuckerberg’s personal views on politics.)

Should one person have such power? Probably not. Explains a lot of “unexplainable” occurrences happening… back to back to back to back to…

This is the modern incarnation of “billionaires buying newspapers” to maintain control of the narrative.

I woke up (from a blackout) on the hood of a car. A car that was stopped at a red light and wasn’t the car my friends were driving. I guess I leapt out of the backseat and rolled around on their hood? Idk, I blacked out again then came-to again rolling through some wet grass. Blacked out again and woke up on a couch.

Turns out that humans can teleport.

Want more details? Me too. But I have no idea. It was more than two decades ago and I no longer drink.

Just an opinion from someone who has been around the internet for a long while. It wouldn’t surprise me if most of the comments are bots. I remember what it was like to interact with humans, even dumb humans, and they aren’t nearly as blatantly agenda-driven as commenters on what I’d call “visible social media”.

There are plenty of people who have a vested interest in disrupting means of communication and organization and they are investing a great deal in “false idea proliferation”.

My 0.02¢.

Oh, you asked for a percentage, in the popular subs? 80+%. In niche subs that don’t affect the Overton Window? 5-30%. And yes, these numbers are favricated outward from my butt hole.

A few ways I’ve used it.

Odd, a site seems to be non-functional. (Enable VPN). Site begins to work. Oh, my ISP was fucking with me.

A site is stuttering. (Enable VPN). Magically works. Oh, my ISP was fucking with me.

The most annoying, my family’s Internet over the holidays was blocking my laptop from updating Ubuntu, enabled VPN, udpate went just fine.

In general, it stops ISPs from dictating if they approve or disapprove of your behavior. Hide what you’re doing and all traffic is just anonymous bits and bobs.

As it fucking should be by law… but in the US the conservative party continually repeals the law that enforces non-interference. So for now, we need VPNs.

Very helpful article. I recommend reading it. Here is the TLDR premise.

Rather than focusing on raising awareness and advocating for the acceptance of autism in society, Autism Speaks treats it like a disease that needs to be cured or eradicated. Such a mindset increases the stigma and discrimination against people with autism as it presents the idea that there is something inherently wrong with them that needs to be fixed.

Autism Speaks seems like an awful organization that masquerades as something that it is not. It seems to essentially be an autism eradication proponent, similar to those who want to eradicate homosexuality. Both, clearly, impossibilities. Or, even if they were possible, amoral at best, immoral more likely.

I don’t disagree, my only addition is that we should set our standards higher than that. We went from generations of “We’re the best!” (whether true or not) to “Well we aren’t the worst…”

I just wish more people could notice the slow changes like that which I think are indicative of a need for systemic change.

But yeah, while I don’t endorse your message, you aren’t wrong.

And is that a good standard, a bad standard, or neutral?

Like, no one in a great situation goes, “Well at least I’m not…” That’s the type of thing one says when they are trying to cope with a poor situation.

And I’d also argue that the dead minorities would disagree with your assessment, give that they are… dead.

Since Oct. 7, 2023, more than 45,000 Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank have been killed by Israel Defense Forces while 1,139 Israelis have been killed by Hamas.

Nearly 70% of Palestinians killed have been women and children.

There are so many flaws with this line of thinking which should be obvious to you, yet are not. I urge you to continue thinking this thought. Follow it to an actionable conclusion, then see how you feel about that conclusion. It may take you a few years so I wish you well on your journey.

Keep thinking, keep considering, follow the path.

I understand the assignment boss.

{I am mega sleepy so I’ll do some clean up edits on this tomorrow probably when my brain is working properly}

Tbh you never came off as ignorant, you seemed genuine and curious otherwise I would not have engaged. We are all ignorant of many things, it’s just a matter of how willing we are to fill that ignorance and how we react to discovering that ignorance.

Responding to another comment you made here.
I don’t really understand the emotional replies online either, everyone seems to be out to hurt others and I don’t understand it. It is so predictably vitriolic that I think that most of the rage is just bots arguing with bots to create the illusion of discord. Just a ‘hopeful’ conspiracy theory of mine… surely people aren’t so mean?

I misread your comment and said something stupid :)
Can’t seem to delete comments on Lemmy, so I replace them with a single period.
Apologies for the false alarm.

To restate the initial point being discussed, “Humans are sometimes neither male nor female.”

An anomaly differs from the common, as you state.

But in this discussion, we are talking about “the existence of something” and not “the normalcy of something”. Those are completely separate discussions.

No one is arguing that being born between genders is ‘normal’ or ‘common’, in fact, the abnormalcy of it is what allows those who carry prejudice and hate in their hearts to hurt and kill these people physically and legislatively.

In short, your comment presents no information relevant to the topic at hand.

I understand your sentiment and I dont want to come off as just “transbasher” […]

1. You seem to be genuinely open-minded, which is good of course. So as you have been well-spoken and generous of thought, I will attempt to be with you as well.

[…] because i have close both male and female friends who after college decided they wanted to transition.I don’t agree with their thought process but I don’t tell them or put them down for their choice because it’s their choice as an adult.

2. The concept of agreeing or disagreeing with someone’s lifestyle is foreign to me, so I cannot comment on that. I do not view myself as a judge to voice an opinion on any person’s lifestyle.

If I live in a society where I can use my sole judgement to manipulate the lifestyle of others, then that means that other members of that society can judge and manipulate my lifestyle. I do not want that for myself, so I do not wish it on others.

On the subject of intersex births, I find the 1 in 1700 to be very generous. Having a mother who has worked labor and delivery for the past 30 years in a large hospital, she has only ever had 2 instances where the baby was born intersex. And that’s out of tens of thousands of deliveries.

3. You must realize that you are taking two missteps of reason here.

The first is anecdotal thinking by placing personal experience above targeted and broad research, the world is a complex place and while I have no doubt that your mother presents this information in earnest, it remains an anecdote.

The second is hearsay, you are not only using anecdotal information, but second-hand anecdotal information.

In my view, one of these errors alone would be enough to disqualify the validity of your point, and together, well… I have no doubt that you are an intelligent person and I hope you can see my concern here, would it not bolster your views to step away from anecdote?

Regarding the data, I cannot comment on the data itself because I admit I am not an expert, I fetched the values from the best information from medical institutions I could find. If better data is presented, I will amend my comment now and moving forward.

In those fringe cases I think sure we can allow those to be allowed to transition because there is a biological reason evident from birth.

4. I agree.

But if you just have a hormone imbalance that doesn’t mean you need to block the natural course of growth to see “what you’d prefer”. Just let the body do it’s thing and when it’s done developing then mess around with it.

5. I disagree, I cannot imagine the pain that transgender folks experience because I am not gender dysphoric, but I do know what it feels like to have someone doubt my experience of mind. Having experienced [won’t go into detail for personal reasons] a variety of mental health issues in my life which have been discarded by others as false because… they were invisible… it is difficult to express the anger that this conjured within me at being told that my own experience was invalid because the observer had not personally experienced what I describe and therefore to them it was imaginary.

Whether you have experienced something like this specific example, or not, I believe that all humans have had the experience of being told that we are lying (when we are not) and we all know how bad that feels. What is real to a person is real to a person. Brains are not computers. We are not purely rational beings. I think that it is fair to allow a person to take any action which 1. increases their quality of life while 2. not harming others and in my view gender affirmation behaviors fall directly into this category.

6. (or 5a.) Regarding delaying treatment until full development. Many biological processes are not reversible, so allowing the body to “do what it will do” then address the results afterward introduces many complications.

Someone who doesn’t want to be a man might be pretty upset when biology makes them 6’8" (203cm) and 300lbs (136kg) then society says, “Okay you can try to be a girl now if you want.”

So I’m fine with this stance regarding reversible techniques (similar to how I feel about puberty blockers… kinda neat how my views are symmetric both ways, right? ;-) ) because there is no harm done. But forcing a delay to full development is something that I believe does cause harm.

Side note, often it can feel that taking no action is a safer action because of how our brains work. But as is often said, “Not making a decision, is a decision.” Taking no action can be equally harmful to taking an action. I believe that this thought applies to our current discussion.

Lucky for us, the arbitrarily set age of developement (roughly 15-18 depending on country) is well within the bounds of avoiding this scenario. That said, everyone develops at a different rate, and I think we all knew the 15 year old that was taller and broader than most full-grown men.

I hope that my comment reads well, I may add some small edits of clarification but I believe that I have expressed the general idea. Have a nice day.

.