Mods are paid in power and the ability to push their opinions.
A not-insignificant number of them are paid in wages and the ability to push the opinions of their employers. Can’t find it, but there was some well-researched accounts of several of the bigger subs being moderated by think tank / party owned accounts, based on IP-tracking and associated account activity.
Most famously, there was the takeover of the /r/Libertarian server by right-wing agitators back in 2018.
That’s not even getting into the direct (and indirect) advertising that site admins manage on behalf of the company itself, which is functionally a form of moderation.
Most big subs have some kind of professional staff at this point, if for no other reason than inattentive or rebellious moderators have been purged by Reddit admin. You’re not going to find some weekend warrior at the top of /r/pics or /r/news or /r/politics.
I was a mod of a decent sized sub until an admin came in and…somehow…convinced the top mod to make the admin top mod. Left a bad taste in my mouth for sure.
what is that supposed to mean? when the api charges were announced, multiple subs went private and were resurrected against the mods’ free will. other mods were instituted. whether any of those made any money, i don’t know. keep in mind that i was not one of those mods and thus cannot verify that information, it is just what was posted on reddit multiple times. trying to deescalate and moderate a sub is a good thing and we should be grateful to those who actively do, but holding it against them that they do not take any money for that neither makes sense nor does anyone benefit from it.
I was just saying they do it for non monetary reasons, and if there is a continuous supply of people willing to do it for free, they really shouldnt pay.
Yea idk why you have downvotes you’re literally just describing capitalism. Has no one seen others volunteering for positions when other people get paid to do the same thing?
In particular, I’ve noticed how the pro-capitalist people don’t seem to realize that we’re not living in a pure capitalist system. Instead we’re living in a mixed economy where key elements are socialist: road building, firefighting, postal services, food and drug safety testing, old age pensions, even ambulances (except for one minor exception).
A 100% socialist (a.k.a. communist) system might not be possible (at least not yet) due to human nature. The few times that it has been tried, at least in theory, it has quickly become an authoritarian system instead. But, AFAIK, it’s so obvious that 100% capitalist would fail completely that no society has even bothered to try it. Hundreds of years ago there were brief experiments with things like capitalist fire services, and Pinkertons as police, but they failed so spectacularly that nobody even thinks of going back.
So, instead we quibble about “capitalist” vs “socialist” when we’re really just arguing about whether the mix should be 80% capitalist, 20% socialist or 60% capitalist, 40% socialist.
What part of that goes against sharing tools, rather than letting wealthy people hold dictatorial control over them? Doesn’t your point mean that we shouldn’t have Capitalism at all?
Exactly, this argument is so weird, even if the assumption was true. “People are naturally greedy so we should have a system that allows them to do as much damage as possible”
In any society, some people will be leaders, some will be followers, this is natural. You cannot have a society without someone organizing the work and setting the course.
Of those who are naturally leaders, some will be much greedier than most. Some will also be ambitious, corrupt, two faced etc.
These people will do their best to gather wealth and power for themselves, be it in a capitalist or communist system. In the capitalist system they’ll become entrepreneurs if they also have good business acumen. In the communist system they’ll become managers and state officials if they can also navigate politics well.
At the end of the day, the same people will get to power and will hold dictatorial control over the means of production. In communist countries a literal dictatorship seems inevitable, while capitalist ones usually favor democracy (can be better for business) but they can also descend into dictatorship.
If you disagree, show me an example where all this is not the case. I’m honestly curious
Capitalism is the opposite of democracy. In a capitalist firm, the managers are not accountable to the governed (i.e. workers). The employer is not a delegate of the workers. They manage the company in their own name not in the workers' name. Managers do not have to have dictatorial control. It is entirely possible to have management be democratically accountable to the workers they govern as in a worker cooperative.
Capitalism v. Communism is a false dilemma. There are other options.
Secondly, you are just tying Socialism and Communism with dictatorship without proving why you think it’s necessary. It’s purely vibes for you.
Tell me this: why do you think a system where Workers have no say, only Capitalists do and serve as mini dictators, is more democratic than a system where Workers vote on how to run production?
Why do chimps kill chimps from other groups that come into their territory? Why do some chimps use aggression against other chimps to manipulate them, while other chimps use grooming?
A certain degree of sharing is part of our human / animal nature, but so is a certain degree of claiming ownership over things, and certain individuals have more sway over decisions than others. Flat hierarchies with nobody in command seem to work in theory, but in practice it’s different.
That’s the Naturalistic fallacy at work, though. We aren’t chimps, nor is doing what humans did in the past necessarily better than what we do now. By that chain, you would be an Anarcho-primitivist.
We could study what various apes do, and try to use that to guess at possible human behaviour - or we could literally just look at human behaviour directly. Surely the direct observations of what humans do is going to give us a more accurate and useful model of human behaviour compared to observations of other species.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what socialism and capitalism are. Simplified it’s who owns the means of production, that is basically the “capital” in the name “capitalism”, in socialism these means of production have a shared ownership. Now you can have a discussion of what that means, if state ownership counts or whatever but as long as individuals own the means of production it’s not socialism no matter how much you tax them(it would still be an improvement to tax them more it’s just not socialism)
Is the US socialist because nVidia is a public company, therefore the shares are owned by the public? Is it a socialist country because most workers have 401(k) plans containing index funds, so they own a tiny portion of every major company? The ownership of the company is shared, so it must be socialism, right? I’d say no, because it’s not shared evenly.
What if a single individual owns a single “mean” of production, but everything else is owned by the state, is that whole system capitalist? To me, it’s clearly not. You could argue that it’s mixed, but I’d say if it’s 99.9% not capitalist, it’s not capitalist.
Modern economies are mixes of socialism and capitalism. The people (through the government) own certain things, and individuals own other things.
Is the US socialist because nVidia is a public company, therefore the shares are owned by the public? […] The ownership of the company is shared, so it must be socialism, right? I’d say no, because it’s not shared evenly.
How did you mess up this badly? A “public company” [sic, the correct term is “publicly traded company”] is a regular private company where the owners are hundreds or even thousands of individuals. A publicly owned company is one where every single citizen owns the company simply by being alive or every single worker owns the company simply by working there.
What if a single individual owns a single “mean” of production, but everything else is owned by the state
I don’t even understand what you mean by this…
Modern economies are mixes of socialism and capitalism. The people (through the government) own certain things, and individuals own other things.
No, they’re not, and this shows a very serious hole in your knowledge of economic and social systems. While, informally, it’s sometimes said to be the case, that’s strictly an oversimplification to communicate a different idea. Countries like the US simply use a government-assisted capitalist model. Places like the Nordic countries have a more transitional system, but are ultimately still just capitalist.
Of course they are. How can you be so confused. Countries like the US are a mix of socialist and capitalist systems. Some things are owned and run by the government (socialism), other things are owned and run by private individuals (capitalism). No society has ever worked where it was 100% socialist or 100% capitalist.
Ah, so you can’t find a flaw in my argument, instead you tell me to “grow up”, as if you’re an adult and I’m not. It’s pretty clear you have no idea what you’re talking about since you can’t argue your point.
This understanding of capitalism is a misunderstanding that both Marxists and neoclassical types share. It is not capital ownership that gives the employer the right to appropriate a firm's whole product. The employment contract is what gives them that right. Sure, capital ownership affects bargaining power, but the root cause is that contract. Abolishing the employment contract while still having individual ownership is possible (i.e. a market economy of worker coops)
Socialism is not when the government does stuff, so those institutions are not examples of socialism. Anti-capitalists are arguing for the complete abolition of exploitative capitalist property relations that violate workers' human rights.
This is a false dilemma. There are other alternatives to capitalism besides communism. It is entirely possible to have a non-capitalist non-communist system (e.g. an economy where every firm is democratically-controlled by the people that work in it)
Socialism is when the “means of production” are owned by the people as a whole rather than individuals. Capitalism is when the “means of production” are owned by individuals. Every modern state contains a mix of both.
If the US is 100% capitalist, then explain how the fire department is a capitalist institution.
Capitalism is not just when the means of production are owned by individuals. For example, in an economy where all firms are democratically-controlled by the people that work in them, the means of production can be owned by individuals, but such an economy is not capitalist because exploitative property relations associated with capitalism are abolished
Pinkertons as police, but they failed so spectacularly
uhh you might want to brush up on your history there, the pinkertons are still around, still quite closely tied to the government, and still being used (among other things) to suppress union organizing at places like amazon and starbucks! Kinda ridiculous to hear that our government is somehow ‘socialist’ when it does stuff like this.
These are all very normal things. The joke is that console gamers are normal people, whereas pc gamers are a bunch of hardcore nerds who never wash themselves, never leave home, don’t have a job and don’t know how to interact with women
It’s funny because I always heard that the rich preferred perfumes over bathing, and looked down on peasants for their bathing, especially public baths.
No source. It’s just what I heard. Even if it’s true, who knows what era and people it applied to.
I have an ingenious system for this: I put my 20 Usb c cables in a box and if I want to transfer data to one of my devices I try a couple of cables from the magic box until it works.
No, it is not normal to state what percent-better-person you would leave your romantic partner for. It’s cynical and narcissistic.
What if your partner is in an accident that changes how they look or live? Now that they’re X% “less” than what you signed on for, you can just dip?
Like I get being upfront about stuff, but this is just transactional. It’s not about your commitment to another person, it’s about maximizing your return on investment.
You could have answered my question a bit earlier, I broke my nose this morning and now her divorce lawyer has informed me that my neighbor across the street has gone up to 12% better than me.
EDIT: I just went over and broke the guy’s kneecaps and am now happily married again.
Taking the time to learn how git works on a conceptual level and then how to resolve merge conflicts effectively is a worthwhile investment. Highly recommended
You don’t. One of the core aspects of Git is that it fully expects conflicts to be inevitable, and it gives you tools to resolve them.
I will say that if you learn to aggressively rebase branches, you can at least occasionally reduce the complexity of conflicts.
If you are working on a long branch and three other branches that conflict with your changes land in the meantime, a simple merge will force you to reconcile all of those conflicts in one big stinky merge commit.
If you instead rebase after each individual branch lands, you resolve the same number of conflicts but in three smaller, focused steps instead of one big ugly one. You also don’t get a merge commit full of redundant deltas that serve only to resync your branch to master; all the conflict resolution becomes baked in to your individual branch commits.
Spreading out the problem is not reducing the problem. But it can make fixing the problem less daunting, which has a similar effect.
It’s kind of difficult to explain in the same way git is difficult to grok on the first try.
Perhaps it’s convincing enough to just say:
Git is the fundamentally better at resolving merges/rebases without conflicts than older VCS that don’t maintain a commit tree data structure.
Even within just git, using one diff algorithm vs another can mean the difference between git successfully merging vs failing and showing you a conflict
Software is flexible – there are endless permutations to how it can be structured. Everything else being equal, some code/commit structures are more prone to conflicts than others
I.e. whether a conflict will happen is not some totally unpredictable random event. It’s possible to engineer a project’s code & repo so that conflicts are less common.
I can think of some “programming best practices” that can help with reducing merge conflicts, such as making small functions/methods, but I see it as a positive side effect.
I don’t think avoiding merge conflicts should be a goal we actively try to reach. Writing readable code organized in atomic commits will already help you get fewer conflicts and will make them easier to resolve.
I’ve seen too many junior and students being distracted from getting their task done because they spent so much time “coordinating” on order to avoid these “scary” merge conflicts
No, not like that – you misunderstand. I’m not talking about actively avoiding conflicts. Coordinating to avoid merge conflicts is the same work as resolving a merge conflict anyway, just at a different time.
I’m talking about creating practices and environments where they’re less likely to happen in the first place, never incurring the coordination cost at all.
One example at the individual level is similar to what you mentioned, but there’s more to it. E.g. atomically renaming and moving in separate commits, so git’s engine better understands how the code has changed over time and can better resolve merges without conflict.
But there’re other levels to it, too. A higher-order example could be a hot module where conflicts frequently occur. Sure, atomic commits and all that can help “recover” from conflict more easily, but perhaps if the hot module were re-designed so that interface boundaries aligned with the domains of changes that keep conflicting, future changes would simply not conflict anymore.
IMO the latter has an actual productivity benefit for teams/orgs. Some portion of devs just aren’t going to be that git proficient, and in this case, good high level organization is saving them from losing hours to incorrect conflict resolutions that can cause lost work, unintended logical conflicts (even though not lexical conflict), etc. Plus, it implies abstraction boundaries better match the changes demanded by the domain, so the code is likely easier to understand, too.
What some folks are missing is that SPAs are great for web applications & unsuitable for web pages. There is more nuance than “SPA bad”.
Then dealing with a lot of dynamic content, piping thru a virtual DOM DSL is 100× nicer for a developer than having to manually manipulate the DOM or hand write XML where it’s easy to forget all the closing tags (XML is better as a interchange format IMO & amazing when you need extensibility… also JSX just makes it worse). That developer experience (DX) often can lead to faster iteration & less bugs even with a cost to the user experience (UX). But it’s not always a negative impact to the UX–SPAs can be used to keep things like a video or music player on while still browser & using the URL bar as a state reference to easy send links to others or remember your own state.
It’s equally silly that a landing page whose primary purpose is to inform users of content takes 40s to load & shows “This applications requires JavaScript” to the TUI browser users & web crawlers/search indexers that don’t have the scale of Google to be executing JavaScript in headless browser just to see what a site has to say.
The trick is knowing how & when to draw these lines as there’s even a spectrum within the two extremes for progressive enhancement. React isn’t the solution to everything. Neither is static sites. Nor HTMX. Nor LiveView. Nor Next/Nuxt/Náxt/Nüxt/Nœxt/Nอxt.
I admitted it was a spectrum, but this recent article in particular does a good job explaining the axes of static vs. dynamic : online vs. offline. I think you will appreciate it. :)
I don’t agree with this hard split between SPAs and MPAs anymore (ie. SPAs for apps, MPAs for websites/content). In my opinion SPAs are simply a progressive enhancement for MPAs which allow even faster page navigation. All frameworks now come with SSR solutions and if a website still requires JS to show content that’s a skill issue.
Looking at Astro the line between SPA/MPA is getting really blurry. Just slap a View Transition element on your page and you got a MPA which acts like a SPA when JS is enabled.
In my opinion SPAs are simply a progressive enhancement for MPAs which allow even faster page navigation.
While I agree that there is a spectrum (hinting at that with the last paragraph), this is where I hard disagree. To construct something like this, you are making an application massively complex by trying to re-implement everything on both ends. Using something like Astro is only hiding that complexity but it’s still there, & probably full of bugs & tons of JavaScript that most developers wouldn’t even understand their stack or know how to jump into the Astro code. The amount of time saved is largely minuscule in most cases with the assets cached when navigating to a new page. In fact, I just tested two of their showcased sites which loaded slower with JavaScript enabled & the content was pretty obviously 95% static. There’s probably some niche use cases for this, but it’s not a good default IMO.
i hate fascists with a passion, but i might not agree with how antifa acts. i do not have any experience with the group itself, i might even agree with them.
for example, i do not like how the last generation glued themselves to streets. that doesn’t make me a climate denier, does it?
EDIT: it seems i misunderstood what antifa is. i always saw it as “the group of violent extremist protesters that throw rocks and light up cars”
again, i am fully for doing everything i can against fascists. but violent protests don’t contribute, all it does is make your movement the next boogeyman.
i am against throwing rocks at police and lighting cars on fire in the name of antifascism. you don’t get taken seriously if you’re the one comitting arson.
i have picked the side that’s stopping fascists. but the enemy of my enemy isn’t automatically my friend. i do not respect movents who are known for committing arson and battery regularly.
I see your edit above, i see the comments you posted after said edit, and I’m not sure you now actually got what antifa means. Especially the part about it not being a single, coherent organization doesn’t seem to get to you.
Its not “the group”.If you look in left and right wing violence in most countries you’ll see a huge disparity, even after the right wing police has significantly biased the statistics. Most people in Antifa groups just go to demos, organize workshops and put political stickers up.
Thats alle the stuff Fox wants to villify, because they want people to be fascists.
There is no singular group called “antifa”. It’s a movement of loosely (at best) interconnected but independent, antifascist groups.
Also, we need all these groups. It’s them who usually organize rallies against racism, fascism, antisemitism, inhuman law proposals, et cetera. Also they organize all sorts of other actions against alt right, far right and (neo-)nazis, like disrupting their rallies and standing in the way of goon squads.
Antifa groups are damn important.
How does burning a car improve anything? By what logic does not burning a car equal to “fucking over the next 15 generations”?
Misdirected rage, even if it’s initially for a good reason, doesn’t help anything. If there’s a house on fire, you pour water on that house, not one two streets over. You do the latter, you end up with two destroyed houses: one burned, the other flooded.
There is no alternative to fighting fascists with violence. You can’t have a nice talk with someone who is gunning down Jewish persons. You just shoot them in the face.
Someone supports fascists who want to genocide a group of people? Burning down their car is less than they deserve.
I invite you to learn more about the holocaust. The suffering cannot be put into words. There is no means too drastic to prevent something like it to ever happen again.
^^^ this pattern shows up right before you make a poorly thought out comment. If you don’t have experience with something I’d expect your comment to be a question for someone who has.
Pokemon fans were so desperate for any kind of innovation instead of the same game over and over and over with worse pokemon designs. At this point the ai ripoffs feel more like pokemon than actual pokemon. An ice cream cone? Ice cube head penguin? Really gamefreak?
It is crazy. Not to mention all of the other attempts at the Pokémon “formula” have mostly just rehashed it. Cassette Beasts is the first I saw that really made some changes… And even they were slight. Digimon and Shin Megami Tensei are quite different but they’ve also been around for yonks.
lemmy.ml
Top