You tear yourself apart!

Not with that attitude

That’s my point though. If you don’t ban (aka censor) illegal things as a foundation, you end up living in a hellscape. I’m saying your argument isn’t thorough enough. It’s not going far enough. It’s scratching the surface and saying “good enough” when it doesn’t actually appear to be.

I am talking about illegal things because it’s an obvious hole in your argument. What are you talking about about? Because it sounds like you’re being short sighted to me, sticking to a happy path, but I could be wrong. What do you think?

You can’t seriously be against all censorship in books, right? Where are your actual boundaries? I don’t think you’d be ok with something obviously evil like a book of cp… Right?

Edgecases are why it’s hard to be consistent.

Ah right, scream into the void and get ignored because I’m not a multimillion dollar donor. Forgot to waste my time, no I have not.

Do you have any more useful suggestions or is void talking all im allowed to do now or get shouted down with “you haven’t done enough” bullshit?

I guess perhaps I’m just disenfranchised in which case, nothing systematic is gonna help.

Guess I’m the doomer after all.

Ah yes, me, the demigod who can act up on all my worries. Tell me again my plan to get trump to fuck off the 2024 election?

Not to be too sarcastic at you, it’s a good sentiment that I do sort of agree with, but it places too much “you can do anything” blame on the observer who literally is already worried. Aka, this runs a major risk of demotivating people straight into doomerism when they’re faced with worries there’s really nothing that they individually can do about.

Unless I’m wrong and there is some legitimate answer to that sarcastic opening question that I, individually, can do about it, in which case, I’m all ears lol

That’s fair. Part of my job is converting non-technical users into technical users by teaching them things like problem solving approaches that are supposed to help them teach themselves how to learn whatever they need to actually do their job. I don’t teach them what to do, I teach them how to learn what to do.

I agree that you gotta meet people where they’re at, but I try to teach them how to poke around any code repo site, like GitHub or gitlab, so they can use it. Usually I point them to the docs and start by pointing out my favorite parts so that they have somewhere to kind of start by themselves, but it is a skill set that can be practice, or at least I am convinced it is.

I’m not very good at this part of my job, but also, no one is, so it’s not a bad thing, I just want to do better. I guess I never thought of it from a truly non-technical and not wanting to be technical perspective before. This could be solved by a secondary interface designed specifically for this kind of user. It would not allow code download or interaction, but it would allow for issue logging. I might put this idea in my ever growing project list because it sounds like it would be a useful product…

I’m interested in where the limits to expectations lie here. I’m not trying to be a jerk when I say this next part but I do worry I may come off that way but I’m trying to figure out the boundaries of what a “reasonable” expectation is so I can make tasks like this easier for my own team (completely unrelated to this project but it’s essentially the same problem).

Is it not reasonable to expect people to type into a search engine something like “GitHub help” and then poke around in the links that come up?

… Well I’ll be damned, I tried my own method before commenting, and the first link that comes up is a red herring, how obnoxious. I was hoping it’d be a link to the docs, not GitHub support. I guess I just answered my own question: no that is not reasonable.

As a technical user, I am still at a loss for how to help a non-technical user in an algorithmic way that will work for most non-technical users x.x guess I’ll be thinking about this problem some more lol

(I guess I’m rambling but I’m gonna post this anyways in case anyone wants to chatter about it with me)

There’s an old proverb I like about this: a person is smart but people are dumb.

People en masse tend to be dumber than they are apart. I think you’re comparing yourself to the faceless masses. It’s much more humbling to try comparing yourself to someone you respect (but don’t do it as a “I’m not as good as them” thing, only do it as a “goals to maybe achieve one day” thing to avoid accidentally trashing your self esteem)

Side note: old proverb here means I think my dad said it once but I have no idea where it actually came from

Seems like we have a fundamental disagreement on what value is. I don’t think society sets what’s valuable and you appear to. I also noticed that we’re drain swirling but that’s likely around the fact that I do not view society as the standard to achieve. Society is a standard that should be guided, not lauded as the end all be all of what reality should be.

Society is not perfect, and it’s social constructs, including money, are essentially bullshit, in my opinion. I think that’s what we’re likely getting caught in. Because I think money is overpowered bullshit, to me, it looks essentially the same exact thing but in different dressage as robux.

I’m likely off topic at this point, it happens. If this seems of no value to you, feel free to disengage. one of my issues is that I’ll keep talking even when the conversation has veered way off lol I don’t mean to waste your time in case that happens.

I guess all I’m trying to say is: you, in my opinion, put too much stock in what society currently is and not enough in what it could look like. The original comment kind of starts to get at what society could look like in a passive meme of a way. I’m personally not sure if society can work without a lubricant like money, but I saw a definition disagreement and jumped on it because that’s what I do for fun.

What do you think about that assessment of the situation?

Oh boy you’re not gonna like my stance on morals :)

And I’m not sure if I should get into my philosophy on language… But, si je parle en francais a tu, it’s as useful as if I hadn’t talked at all to you all, because (assuming you don’t already know French, if you do, replace the example with a language that you do not know and the point still stands) French is a social construct amongst the French, not amongst English speakers. So therefore, different constructs have different values in different contexts.

I guess my wandering point here (because I absolutely agree still with the original poster that money is a made up social construct) is that even though you value money more than robux, it doesn’t give money any more legitimacy, it’s just you’ve decided one is more useful than the other based on the necessities of society. That is not a wrong thing to do, by all means, you need money and not robux to survive in common society, but it does cover up the nature of things in that money is technically just as legitimate a token as robux.

I added an edit that covers the tradable token part.

Their point is they don’t want to give you anything because, per the nerdy ass phrasing, those fake tokens are also tradable for things of minor interest, which is more interesting to have than not have. So why give away the tokens for free?

Their original point is just that money is made up (aka that it only has agreed upon socially determined value)

Oh boy we’ve engaged nerd mode, my favorite!

Robux technically are just as legitimate as dollars it’s just we arbitrarily do not accept robux for milk because it’s new (aka not “legal tender”). If you want legal money, you’ll have to specify lmao

That seems to be the original point of this chain, am I wrong?

Edit: technically legitimate not meaning backed but as legitimate as any other made up tradable token, aka crypto. It might be more correct for me to say robux are technically as legitimate as crypto, but I’m not entirely sure right now about the exact phrasing I want to use.

How did they get mixed? I see 1 in arabic and 2 and 3 in Hindu. Is there a good place to start reading or watching about this in your opinion? If not, I’m just gonna YouTube the history of numbers and see where I land

1. you don’t have to understand it, you just shouldn’t be a legislative genocidal asshole about it (not that that’s what you’re doing, but that’s what republicans seem to do to anything they think isn’t their slim sliver of a definition of “normal”)

2. if you’re talking about furries, to my layman’s understanding of the subculture, that’s not how the vast majority of furries relate to themselves. From what I’ve seen, it’s not that they are the animal itself, they are the aspects of the animal, and those things are just little icons that they’re like boosting because they resonate with it. That said, there are at least a few people who DO feel that way, but I’m pretty sure they have a special category name (ferals? I think that’s what they’re called but I could be wrong, this is some deep lore I picked up years ago). If they do have that special name and I’m not just making that part up, then that implies that most furries do not feel that way about themselves.

But, acknowledging the existence of people like that at all does validate your question in my mind. I don’t really understand that extreme either. My only point is that most furries are what you would likely consider “normal”, they just have a particular hobby. It’s no more nefarious or odd than being into gender bending cosplay. You’re just taking something (yourself rather than an anime/video game character) and twisting it into something artistically different (a fursona instead of a cosplay outfit).

…no I did not intend to write that much defending furries but here we are lmao

deleted by creator

Ngl, pretty rude to just go poking around in stranger’s holes like that without warning lmao (/s/jk/etc)

I get that, nothing wrong with that!

Tbh I was wondering if that may have been the case and it was seeming to get pretty fight-y in tone, so I figured I’d get my own clarification in case other users want to also understand without getting into a fight

Sometimes it’s nice to have a break from all the hardcore political stuff, and the upvote rate on this post pretty much proves that point lol as far as the user base cares, you did good!

Ahh you’re going based on what seems to be a textbook definition rather than the vibe definition.

Typically there’s a certain vibe to political cartoons, and I think the original commenter and I are just used to that vibe to tell whether a cartoon is “actually” political. This cartoon is missing that vibe by a lot. It seems to be a gta meme more than a political meme, vibes wise.

That said, you’re not wrong by your own definition, and that makes enough sense for me! Thanks for the clarification, much appreciated!

The way I (layman) read it, they seemed to be saying that it would be phased out by newer companies finding different alternatives, not that everyone is phasing it out as we speak.

Does this seem more realistic? Or just completely non-factual?