lukecooperatus

I think that instance has defederated with some other highly active instances (like mine) so unfortunately we can't really help much there.

One of the drawbacks of how the fediverse works, I guess, though discouraging centralization is also good.

An effect that becomes less surprising with repetition. At some point, it's no longer a "surprising effect" but an entirely expected one.

I dunno, Mozilla developers have had 10 releases in the past 4 months alone, with many bug fixes in every release, and 3 of those releases being minor versions each containing multiple new features. I certainly consider bug fixes and new features to be improvements happening to the browser.

Yeah, not understanding that is a consequence of people not reading the source material, because Tolkien definitely explains exactly why the eagles couldn't do that.

On the other hand, I think it's a valid criticism of the movies that, for all the amazing things he did in that trilogy, Peter Jackson failed to explain something minor that turned out to be a lingering issue for some segment of the wider audience that would consume that adaptation.

Internet Archive to the rescue: https://web.archive.org/web/20240923091701/https://peabee.substack.com/p/whats-inside-the-qr-code-menu-at

Edit: oops, @ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org beat me to it!

These fuckers should just release digital first, and physical comes when it's done being printed and distributed. This anxiety over "oh no a finished game got leaked early" is manufactured drama. If the game is done, then it doesn't matter when it gets released, except for artificial marketing angst. Make a good game that players want, and it'll be purchased. Eventually. It doesn't have to all happen at exactly the predicted moment.

So you can type without making any meaningful points? How is this a comment?

This kind of confusion illustrated by Telegram users is exactly why it was the right thing to do for privacy when Signal removed support for SMS because it's not encrypted. People still whine endlessly about it, but most users are not very savvy, and they'll assume "this app is secure" and gleefully send compromised SMS to each other. All the warnings and UI indicators that parts of the app were less secure (or not at all in the case of SMS) would be ignored by many users, resulting in an effectively more dangerous app. Signal was smart to remove those insecure features entirely.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your overall point here (I have no idea why people engage with shorts, maybe they do love that format) but I wanted to push back a little on the idea that a product must be popular simply because corporations continue to offer them. Especially with social media, where users are actively discouraged from making their own decisions as much as possible by The Algorithm.

I think there are plenty of examples of things that people continue to use (and often even pay for the "privilege") despite major aspects of those things being generally reviled by everyone who uses them:

• ad infested apps and websites
• gaming microtransactions
• a new phone every year
• cable service
• insurance
• HOAs
• gasoline
• Amazon
• pants and dresses without pockets

I'm not saying that Connect shouldn't be updated to address this, but that does seem more like a Lemmy bug than a Connect bug. The presence of extra query parameters shouldn't (IMO) be breaking an API request, they should just be ignored.

Right! It's definitely fulfilling the purpose OP stated here in this post, as long as that's what you're using it for. I'm just pointing out that it doesn't do the other things it claims to do in the readme for the repo, so that's something to be aware of.

This seems like a valuable utility for concealing writing style, though I feel like the provided example fails to illustrate the rest of the stated goal of the project, which is to "prevent biases, ensuring that the content is judged solely on its merits rather than on preconceived notions about the writer" and "enhance objectivity, allowing ideas to be received more universally".

The example given is:

You: This is a demo of TextCloak!!!

Model: "Hey, I just wanted to share something cool with you guys. Check out this thing called TextCloak - it's pretty neat!"

The model here is injecting bias that wasn't present in the input (claims it is cool and neat) and adds pointlessly gendered words (you guys) and changes the tone drastically (from a more technical tone to a playful social-media style). These kinds of changes and additions are actually increasing the likelihood that a reader will form preconceived notions about the writer. (In this case, the writer ends up sounding socially frivolous and oblivious compared to the already neutral input text.)

This tool would be significantly more useful if it detected and preserved the tone and informational intent of input text.