I mean, Telegram is the worst of the bunch, but putting that aside, the point is that people aren't comparing telegram and whatsapp, they're comparing telegram, whatsapp, signal, matrix, sms, imessage, facebook messenger, instagram messenger, session, wire, wechat, the crypto ones, kik, and a dozen other chat clients you've never heard of. And most people are not actually making those comparisons, most people just use the one their friends use, or the one that their phone came with. Nobody, anywhere, is pretending there are only two options and picking one of them.
Why are you taking such a confrontational approach?
Original commenter and you give no information on what makes Signal better. Signal is outside of the topic scope anyway, but would be a fair extension of it. Instead you use an insulting tone and completely dismiss their approach.
And this shit gets more up than downvotes. Makes it clear this platform has group-think toxicity issues too, moreso than promoting fair and good-intention discussion.
OP tone is mainly confusion with an open question. They disclose their belief/understanding which they acknowledge either contradicts or puts into question the evident state of things they see.
I don’t see how that’s confrontational similar to the commenter dismissing their whole approach as a definite statement without points you could argue. It’s a closed dismissal and in an insulting tone.
What makes you think they are similar? Or to what degree?
I don’t know about you, but the tone of the original question come across very dismissively to me. OP isn’t asking what they missed, why WhatsApp might be as good as Telegram. They’ve flat out declared the winner and are asking why nobody else is agreeing with them.
I can see your point, and agree with it for the most part. But they’re still posting on Asklemmy implying it is a question or interest of reason. It also doesn’t dismiss a person directly/specifically, nor is the tone insulting.
Chicago has a weirdly high number of mattress chain stores. There’s a stretch near me that has 3 of them in the span of 4 blocks. They’ve all been there for awhile and there’s rarely ever anyone in them. No way these are legit businesses considering how often people buy mattresses.
Maybe it’s on a different account but at least on this account I don’t see any posts on your profile that are in the negative.
I find it interesting how posts like these only pop up asking about downvotes, never upvotes. Does this “hivemind” only do things you don’t like? Is it in the room with us right now?
People have no obligation to interact with anything in any way. There are people who downvote just to make the post go away in some apps. Stop worrying yourself with what gets points. If it’s that big of an issue, sign up with beehaw, afaik they don’t do downvotes at all.
Huh, I looked and also didn't see many posts in the negative. Then I clicked through to the original instance, and the same posts have completely different scores. Like one post was (+22/-10) on Kbin, and -52 on Lemmy.
I find it interesting how posts like these only pop up asking about downvotes, never upvotes
You don’t hear complaints about it as much but it absolutely does happen. I haven’t really seen it here, yet, but I cannot count the number of times on reddit I’ve seen a highly upvoted comment confidently spouting incorrect information, with replies correcting the information at BEST gaining no traction, but more likely they get downvoted hard for going against the upvoted comment.
That’s fair enough, but even in that case I wouldn’t call it a “hivemind”. I can only speak from my own perspective (don’t have stats to support this) but I don’t think people click an arrow just because X amount of people have done the same. At least I don’t. What it seems like to me is, right or wrong, people will generally behave in ways that reflect their knowledge and level of interest in the subject.
That’s not a hivemind or herd behavior or whatever else people like to call it. The masses aren’t an NPC that does stuff on auto pilot.
You see the same phenomenon on Stack Overflow sometimes. A confidently incorrect answer will be marked as correct with a tremendously high score, while the actual correct answer languishes somewhere below.
For the uninitiated, the monty Hall problem is a good one.
Start with 3 closed doors, and an announcer who knows what’s behind each. The announcer says that behind 2 of the doors is a goat, and behind the third door is a car student debt relief, but doesn’t tell you which door leads to which. They then let you pick a door, and you will get what’s behind the door. Before you open it, they open a different door than your choice and reveal a goat. Then the announcer says you are allowed to change your choice.
So should you switch?
The answer turns out to be yes. 2/3rds of the time you are better off switching. But even famous mathematicians didn’t believe it at first.
I know the problem is easier to visualize if you increase the number of doors. Let's say you start with 1000 doors, you choose one and the announcer opens 998 other doors with goats. In this way is evident you should switch because unless you were incredibly lucky to pick up the initial door with the prize between 1000, the other door will have it.
The odds you picked the correct door at the start is 1/1000, that means there’s a 999/1000 chance it’s in one of the other 999 doors. If the man opens 998 doors and leaves one left then that door has 999/1000 chance of having the prize.
The thing is, you pick the door totally randomly and since there are more goats, the chance to pick a goat is higher. That means there’s a 2/3 chance that the door you initially picked is a goat. The announcer picks the other goat with a 100% chance, which means the last remaining door most likely has the prize behind it
Edit: seems like this was already answered by someone else, but I didn’t see their comment due to federation delay. Sorry
Don’t be sorry, your comment was the first time I actually understood how it works. Like I understand the numbers, but I still didn’t get the problem, even when increasing the amount of doors. It was your explanation that made it actually click.
I think the problem is worded specifically to hide the fact that you’re creating two set of doors by picking a door, and that shrinking a set actually make each individual door in that set more likely to have the prize.
Think of it this way : You have 4 doors, 2 blue doors and 2 red doors. I tell you that there is 50% chance of the prize to be in either a blue or a red door. Now I get to remove a red door that is confirmed to not have the prize. If you had to chose, would you pick a blue door or a red door? Seems obvious now that the remaining red door is somehow a safer pick. This is kind of what is happening in the initial problem, but since the second ensemble is bigger to begin with (the two doors you did not pick), it sort of trick you into ignoring the fact that the ensemble shrank and that it made the remaining door more “valuable”, since the two ensembles are now of equal size, but only one ensemble shrank, and it was always at 2/3 odds of containing the prize.
The point is, the odds don’t get recomputed after the other doors are opened. In effect you were offered two choices at the start: choose one door, or choose all of the other 999 doors.
read up on the law of total probability. prob(car is behind door #1) = 1/3. monty opens door #3, shows you a goat. prob(car behind door #1) = 1/3, unchanged from before. prob(car is behind door #2) + prob(car behind door #1) = 1. therefore, prob(car is behind door #2) = 2/3.
Following that cascade, didn’t you just change the probability of door 2? It was 1/3 like the other two. Then you opened door three. Why would door two be 2/3 now? Door 2 changes for no disclosed reason, but door 1 doesn’t? Why does door 1 have a fixed probability when door 2 doesn’t?
This is so mind blowing to me, because I get what you’re saying logically, but my gut still tells me it’s a 50/50 chance.
But I think the reason it is true is because the other person didn’t choose the other 998 doors randomly. So if you chose any of the other 998 doors, it would still be between the door you chose and the winner, other than the 1/1000 chance that you chose right at the beginning.
like on paper the odds on your original door was 1/3 and the option door is 1/2, but in reality with the original information both doors were 1/3 and now with the new information both doors are 1/2.
Yes, you don’t actually have to switch. You could also throw a coin to decide to stay at the current door or to switch. By throwing a coin, you actually improved your chances of winning the price.
This is incorrect. The way the Monty Hall problem is formulated means staying at the current door has 1/3 chance of winning, and switching gives you 2/3 chance. Flipping a coin doesn’t change anything. I’m not going to give a long explanation on why this is true since there are plenty other explanations in other comments already.
This is a common misconception that switching is better because it improves your chances from 1/3 to 1/2, whereas it actually increases to 2/3.
Your original odds were 1/3, and this never changes since you don’t get any new information.
The key is that Monty always reveals a goat. No matter what you choose, even before you make your choice, you know Monty will reveal a goat. Therefore, when he does so, you learn nothing you didn’t already know.
To me, it makes sense because there was initially 2 chances out of 3 for the prize to be in the doors you did not pick. Revealing a door, exclusively on doors you did not pick, does not reset the odds of the whole problem, it is still more likely that the prize is in one of the door you did not pick, and a door was removed from that pool.
Imo, the key element here is that your own door cannot be revealed early, or else changing your choice would not matter, so it is never “tested”, and this ultimately make the other door more “vouched” for, statistically, and since you know that the door was more likely to be in the other set to begin with, well, might as well switch!
Let’s name the goats Alice and Bob. You pick at random between Alice, Bob, and the Car, each with 1/3 chance. Let’s examine each case.
Case 1: You picked Alice. Monty eliminates Bob. Switching wins. (1/3)
Case 2: You picked Bob. Monty eliminates Alice. Switching wins. (1/3)
Case 3: You picked the Car. Monty eliminates either Alice or Bob. You don’t know which, but it doesn’t matter-- switching loses. (1/3)
It comes down to the fact that Monty always eliminates a goat, which is why there is only one possibility in each of these (equally probable) cases.
From another point of view: Monty revealing a goat does not provide us any new information, because we know in advance that he must always do so. Hence our original odds of picking correctly (p=1/3) cannot change.
In the variant “Monty Fall” problem, where Monty opens a random door, we perform the same analysis:
Case 1: You picked Alice. (1/3)
Case 1a: Monty eliminates Bob. Switching wins. (1/2 of case 1, 1/6 overall)
Case 1b: Monty eliminates the Car. Game over. (1/2 of case 1, 1/6 overall)
Case 2: You picked Bob. (1/3)
Case 2a: Monty eliminates Alice. Switching wins. (1/2 of case 2, 1/6 overall)
Case 2b: Monty eliminates the Car. Game over. (1/2 of case 2, 1/6 overall)
Case 3: You picked the Car. (1/3)
Case 3a: Monty eliminates Alice. Switching loses. (1/2 of case 3, 1/6 overall)
Case 3b: Monty eliminates Bob. Switching loses. (1/2 of case 3, 1/6 overall)
As you can see, there is now a chance that Monty reveals the car resulting in an instant game over-- a 1/3 chance, to be exact. If Monty just so happens to reveal a goat, we instantly know that cases 1b and 2b are impossible. (In this variant, Monty revealing a goat reveals new information!) Of the remaining (still equally probable!) cases, switching wins half the time.
But even famous mathematicians didn’t believe it at first.
They emphatically did not believe it at first. Marilyn vos Savant was flooded with about 10,000 letters after publishing the famous 1990 article, and had to write two followup articles to clarify the logic involved.
I couldn’t tell you - I used the Wikipedia article to reference the specifics and I’m not sure where I first heard about the story. I just remember that the mathematics community dogpiled on her hard for some time and has since completely turned around to accept her answer as correct.
Also relevant - she did not invent the problem, but her article is considered by some to have been what popularized it.
It took me a while to wrap my head around this, but here’s how I finally got it:
There are three doors and one prize, so the odds of the prize being behind any particular door are 1/3. So let’s say you choose door #1. There’s a 1/3 chance that the prize is behind door #1 and, therefore, a 2/3 chance that the prize is behind either door #2 OR door #3.
Now here’s the catch. Monty opens door #2 and reveals that it does not contain the prize. The odds are the same as before – a 1/3 chance that the prize is behind door #1, and a 2/3 chance that the prize is behind either door #2 or door #3 – but now you know definitively that the prize isn’t behind door #2, so you can rule it out. Therefore, there’s a 1/3 chance that the prize is behind door #1, and a 2/3 chance that the prize is behind door #3. So you’ll be twice as likely to win the prize if you switch your choice from door #1 to door #3.
First, fuck you! I couldn’t sleep. The possibility to win the car when you change is the possibility of your first choice to be goat, which is 2/3, because you only win when your first choice is goat when you always change.
Just count the number of possibilities. If you change there there two possible first choices to win + if you do not change 1 possible choice to win = 3. If you change there is one possible first choice to lose + if you do not change there two possible first choices to lose=3 P(x1)=P(x1’) = 3/6
I had a lady in the marketing department open a ticket with us many years ago when ILoveYou was running rampant and we had blocked yahoo mail, gmail, etc on our corporate network and she was PISSED because “I need to access that for my other job!”. Yes, she put that in the ticket. That was a brief discussion with her manager and a resume generating event for her.
Ironically I would have been happy to help her figure out a solution had she not been a complete and utter bitch about it. Instead she got her ass fired for misusing company resources. I suspect her boss was looking for an excuse, 'cause this woman was a 100% Karen stereotype.
One byproduct of combustion is water vapors. As molecules get rearranged during the combustion process you are using heat to make the gasoline (a HYDROcarbon, i.e. hydrogen and carbon) react with OXYGEN. So some of it comes out with the hydrogen binding with oxygen creating H2O (water, hydrogen and oxygen) , and others are CO or CO2 (Carbon and oxygen) the leaner the mixture the more likely you get the relatively harmless co2 instead of the deadly CO because the more oxygen rich mixture allows for mpre complete combustion with two oxygen molecules to bind to it making co2 instead of just one binding to it making CO.
Anywho, those water vapors condense when the exhaust and engine cool into actually liquid since colder air can’t hold as much moisture as the normally hot exhaust. When you start the car that condensed water gets blown to then end of the exhaust and drips out.
I am probably not 100% accurate on the chemistry, I am just a firefighter that likes to also work on cars. I understand how fire works.
If your engine is working very poorly. Unburned fuel in your exhaust is a problem large enough that you'll probably be experiencing a lot of engine trouble.
No, if your car was built in the last 50 years it probably has a catalytic converter, which will burn off any fuel that hasn’t combusted before it gets out of the exhaust. And even so, once you get to the point where you’re having fuel flow out the exhaust it would be flooded to the point well beyond hydro-lock and wouldn’t be running at all.
Why is there such a large amount of Nazi, fascist, conservative, Republican, and bootlicking related posts on other platforms compared to the Fediverse?
And I believe it’s because outrage and hate drive engagement and that’s essentially the point of of social networks as they are really just fronts for ads.
I couldn’t bring myself to watch these videos but I asked a friend who’s more resilient to cringe to watch for me and here is what she reported back:
In the first video he covers his marriage and then halfway through begins talking about why women and men lie about their age, then complains about Chinese people being in Japan, talks about going to a university, then cooks some pasta.
In the second video he complains about missing a package delivery and walks to the post office, gets his divorce papers, and vents about stuff he left in Japan. Discusses the contents of a letter his ex-wife sent him, and then his personal feelings about the divorce. Ends with cooking.
In the third video he talks about the financial benefits of purchasing a “rubberized girlfriend”, which cost him $328, how there’s no risk of pregnancy, STIs, bleeding, rejection ("she can’t say no”), or crying. Ends with cooking and doxes himself.
In the fourth video he talks about why he doesn’t wash his rubberized girlfriend because of how difficult it is to clean it. “It feels like washing a baby in the sink or a raw chicken.” He also states he likes the smell of himself. Currently lives with his parents. Ends with cooking.
I didn’t realise this was old until you brought it up. I got here from the sub, which I got to by misclicking on the sub portion of a post when I just wanted to see its comments.
Those are packages that lot of other packages rely on and so as a result just needs more testing. Sometimes Arch is faster, sometimes other distros are faster. This is relatively normal.
Wasn’t Python being behind the reason GNOME 44 took a little while to come out? It does seem like things move a little slower than they used to. Might be a good thing for stability in the long run. Think people need to be reminded that Arch is community run too. So updates might lag behind compared to these distros with big corporations behind them.
I believe I read there was only one package maintainer for Gnome on Arch, which is why the release took longer. We have to remember it’s often just regular people, or in that case, person, who maintains this stuff for free or very little. And just because upstream made a release doesn’t mean it’s a simple drop-in to our distro of choice.
To add to this, all of the packages mentioned have a -git version in the AUR. The people who really need the absolute newest version can always install these packages. The rest of the people (those who prefer stability) can continue using a slightly older, but well-tested versions of these programs.
No what you want is unstable Arch which you can freely do by changing the repos, but your user experience will be fraught with pain and issues. You can move to Debian and do the same by running their unstable branches, same results though, most likely a broken system.
And you can also install packages from the Arch testing repos - which I really wouldn’t want to - but it’s entirely up to you.
I appreciate the work that goes into testing and patching stuff for Arch a lot. I don’t want my OS to break for no good reason. Getting an update a month earlier is no good reason.
The Threadiverse (Lemmy & kbin) had less than 10k active users before June. Now there’s more than 126k active users. It doesn’t mean that they all left Reddit, but at least that they are active here since Reddit fucked things up.
That’s good to see. I know the first few days that I used Lemmy my feeds were pretty sparse. Now I can endlessly scroll though new content. I hope the growth continues.
And now that there is enough to infinite-scroll, that’s enough to satisfy any one user. Of course, it’s true that having more content will allow for a larger number of high quality posts and the ability to serve more niche communities, but at least there is a viable alternative for that Reddit itch now. It’s so much easier to uninstall Reddit apps than it was a month ago.
Yeah with lemmy i haven’t even thought about checking Reddit out. I can’t wait for the comment sections here to grow, a lot of posts only have handfuls of comments. I still don’t have the heart to delete Apollo yet, and I’ve caught myself opening the app out of habit. It might be about to time to fill that spot with lemmy.
Reddit is among the most popular social media worldwide, with an estimated 55.79 million daily active users and 1.660 billion monthly active users in 2023.
Yeah, a drop in the bucket. Even considering lurkers and bots.
But that’s okay. The goal is to have a nice, active enough community outside of reddit. Reddit can keep on existing. I would argue not having everyone move here, or somewhere else, is good to keep the interaction healthy. Let alone the software and servers that couldn’t handle it.
Heck, a few weeks ago people thought Lemmy as a whole wouldn’t take off due to tankies. Seems like everyone has defederated that bunch and has grown a lot.
Most people who moved over are more likely to be contributors.
That’s the key - a relatively small number of people provided the bulk of the content and they are also the kind of power users who would have been hit hard by the API changes, so are most likely to leave.
Quality over quantity and exactly the kind of people you want to help build a new place like this.
On yeah, teenagers getting smart phones is a big piece of it. We used to joke about summer Reddit being terrible with the influx of teenagers and then summer Reddit just became the normal
Reddit is stupid but do we really want to be as big as Reddit? The quality has tanked in the past several years in large part because of how big it is. I think we’re on a good trajectory. Looking at it as a zero sum game where Reddit has to fail for this to be successful will only leave you disappointed. Reddit doesn’t need to fail for Lemmy to be good.
I don’t think the size of Reddit was, itself, responsible for the deterioration, but it did attract bad actors and those not acting in good faith – the bots, reposters, karma whores, etc. It’s an unfortunate side effect that’s hard to guard against when these actors see a huge platform and an opportunity to take advantage and manipulate it.
Outside of those issues, which does make it worse, the massive amount of users and karma system creates perverse incentives that make any real discussion impossible. Anyone trying to actually engage in discussion is drowned out and the top comments are just people trying to input the right combination of words to make the internet points come out. And if you dare go slightly against the hive mind, your dog piled with people trying to virtue signal harder than everyone else to collect the points. I generally agree with the hive mind and I still find it completely insufferable and uninteresting.
It’s not even just a political thing, go to the guitar subreddit and try to suggest wood makes a difference in tone and see how indignantly you get attacked.
Sure you can find niche communities that are better if you really dig but in my experience, they tend to just fizzle out or get big and succumb to the site wide problems.
Reddit was way better 10 years ago and this place is already starting to kinda feel like that. I would be very happy if we could stay that way.
The quality has tanked in the past several years in large part because of how big it is.
What I think happened in the past several years was the rise of the mobile user.
It’s somewhat hard to write well on a touchscreen and the 13+ demographic expanding as younger teens had less tech-hesitant parents means that low-effort submissions really took off. They don’t write well at all, and they don’t care about paragraphs, punctuation, or using any capital letters.
Oh yeah, teenagers getting smart phones is a big piece of it. We used to joke about summer Reddit when all the kids were off school and everything got dumb and horny. And then that became the normal.
A good chunk of those could’ve made accounts but not stayed long. And how do they get those numbers? Because there were many people who did accounts in more than one instance.
@Diplomjodler3@Ophioparma finished building my PC proceeded with installing Windows 11. Realized my failure. Installed PopOS. Life is so much better now.
Not only does it move, but it gets covered by an ad and it has to track your eyeballs on that tile for 5 seconds before it reveals the desktop. That way, you spend a minute watching ads looking for the real desktop.
There’s no financial incentive for them to make is easy to leave Google. Takeout only exists to comply with regulations (e.g. digital markets act), and as usual, they’re doing the bare minimum to not get sued.
Or why is Google Takeout as good as it is? It’s got no business being as useful as it is in a profit-maximizing corpo. 😂 It can be way worse while still technically compliant. Or expect Takeout to get worse over time as Google looks into undermaximized profit streams.
Probably because the individual engineers working on Takeout care about doing a good job, even though the higher-ups would prefer something half-assed. I work for a major tech company and I’ve been in that same situation before, e.g. when I was working on GDPR compliance. I read the GDPR and tried hard to comply with the spirit of the law, but it was abundantly clear everyone above me hadn’t read it and only cared about doing the bare minimum.
Most likely. Plus Takeout appeared way before Google was showing any profit maximization signs and didn’t even hold the monopoly position it does hold today.
kbin.life
Top