I would add that one of the fundamental problems with Lemmy is that people are not using the voting system in good faith. Upvotes and downvotes have increasingly become a measure of whether someone agrees or disagrees with an opinion, rather than whether a contribution is relevant, factual, constructive, or adds value to the discussion. That was never what the voting system was designed for.

Genuine question, citation ?

I've not seen anything that properly defines what the voting system is for other than the join-lemmy docs which seem to state it's purely for visibility and sorting.

Lemmy uses a voting system to sort post listings. On the left side of each post there are up and down arrows, which let you upvote or downvote it. You can upvote posts that you like so that more users will see them, or downvote posts so that they are less likely to be seen. Each post receives a score which is the number of upvotes minus the number of downvotes.

You know what? that's fair.

I entirely missed that comment, my bad.

I don't think idealism against the idea of violence is the answer, given..you know....people, but i'm all for not making it the first port of call.

Unless you're suggesting teaching kindergarten girls to hit boys will repair their self esteem or pride, im not sure why it's necessary to make gender a variable here.

Ah, that makes sense, so that bring me back to another reply i posted at the start.

It’s very specifically about what an individual does and does not wish to watch,** because it only applies in certain circumstances**. If it wasn’t about that, everyone would have to pay it regardless of usage.

It only applies in certain circumstances, because that's how it was implemented.

If a public broadcasting tax is what they want, then they should introduce it that way, not a slow creep of additional conditions and charges like some shitty subscription service .

It makes it look like they are too cowardly to just make it a universal mandatory tax.

The tax idea you suggest is a reasonable approach, but it isn't how it currently works, which is why i was saying that it's very specifically about if the individual meets the criteria that exist right now.

That is partially true.

The problem with LLM's specifically is that it's built upon such a huge foundation of shittiness.

To get to the nuance you have to ignore basically all of the horrible shit.

At the risk of an early invoking of godwin's law, it's like trying to have a nuanced conversation about hitlers politics.

Just because you might be willing to handwave the bullshit away so you can have the nuanced conversation you want that doesn't mean everybody is willing to do the same.

There's a difference between "not recognising that nuance exists" and "not wanting (or being able) to engage in nuance because that requires glossing over horrible shit".

so.....the extended consequences of rampant capitalism ?

well...rampant "people gonna people" but capitalism is the current favoured expression of that.

Aw, so close, you were supposed to block me.

All you'll get from me is words you don't understand in sentences too long for you to keep in context.

Tell you what, you've been working hard, i'll help you with this last bit.

There you go, I knew you could do it, well done.

ah,ok, i followed most of that and it makes sense.

Thanks for the explanation

Storing a childs' tracing of the mona lisa in a vault is a form of preservation, doesn't make it useful outside of very specific contexts.

That's hyperbole of course, but slop conversions are a facsimile of greatly varying quality.

genuine question, how did you know it was byte identical if you only had a partial backup ?

See, this is the dedication im talking about.

You see more then one person disagreeing with you and suddenly it's a bunch of alt accounts all ganging up on you.

It probably didn't even enter your mind that you might be wrong.

Thats the kind of dedication to sub-par thought processes you just don't see everyday.

Cursory check of account histories to see if they show any signs of overlap?

Hah, no, must be a conspiracy.

Re-read the comment chain, just in case you might have missed something?

Hell no, single user conspiracy against you is the obvious cause.

This is the kind of single minded pursuit of the "truth" that the internet is lacking nowadays.

I'd give you a slow clap but with your level of demonstrated perception, you might think in trying to attack you or something.

Anyway, good luck with life, sounds like it might be a bit of a struggle.

Edit: I realise that's probably a lot of text for you to read in one sitting, don't push yourself, if it's too much, just reply with an excuse and block me. That way nobody will know. Mental health is important