![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://programming.dev/pictrs/image/170721ad-9010-470f-a4a4-ead95f51f13b.png)
The problem is that people realized that they could sell agile training to middle management if they changed it to be about making middle managers feel empowered and giving progress visibility to upper management.
The problem is that people realized that they could sell agile training to middle management if they changed it to be about making middle managers feel empowered and giving progress visibility to upper management.
I don’t necessarily agree that decentralized is fractured by design, nor that “working as intended” means that it’s the best solution for this/every situation.
I’m saying that as we decentralize, we get both advantages and disadvantages. I’m saying that this is a situation where we can’t both have our cake and eat it too.
For example:
We could decentralize communities themselves, preventing them from fracturing. Instead of having communities hosted on a single instance, communities could be feeds aggregating all posts tagged as belonging to that community. Then if you defederate an instance you simply stop seeing posts from users in that instance.
But then good-faith mods are defanged and can no longer protect vulnerable community members from antagonistic actors.
I think my straw example tradeoff is a bad one, that’s too much decentralization of power.
I actually already discussed that if you go back and read the comment that you’re replying to
But again that fractures the community.
You lose all the community history, and not everyone migrates to the new community. You end up with a bunch of new splinter communities, none of which have critical mass to survive.
I’m talking about systemic solutions for the general problem of bad-actor mods.
Defederating an instance is fracturing the community which difficult for a community to withstand with our current user numbers.
Giving mods less power, such as making communities themselves defederated, makes problems for good-faith mods who are trying to protect vulnerable community members.
It’d be neat if the community itself could vote to migrate to a new instance, but that’d be so fraught with abuse that I can’t see it actually working.
I don’t think there is a solution.
Effective moderation to protect vulnerable people needs more centralization. Avoiding the influence of bad-actor mods needs more decentralization. The two seem fairly mutually exclusive. Or rather, they trade off against each other.
With more users, having a fractured community wouldn’t be a huge problem, because they could all have critical mass. But with the current user base that is generally not feasible, even for really popular topics.
Yeah, I know I shouldn’t expect much from a site like that, but since it’s shared here I felt like I should shine a little light on the deeper issues.
This kind of superficial “journalism” rage-baiting boomers for clicks is really frustrating to me. Shit like this is brain-rot at least as bad as Tiktok is. It has always existed, but the extent to which it has replaced actual analysis and investigation is depressing.
Yes, the parents are partially at fault, of course. But as you indicated, there are significant societal pressures that force families into dynamics like this and it’s not realistic to expect an overwhelming majority to be able to resist it, alone. And since we’re not about to engage in class-based eugenics, it’s up to society to give them a serviceable ladder to climb out of their situation.
So, TLDR; I wanted to shine a light on deeper issues, so that people don’t think that this is solely a moral failing of parents, and that they DO understand that we have a collective responsibility to help families.
Found the illiterate bootlicker ☝️
I mean, that’s kind of my point - in situations like that, it seems like using Tiktok is small potatoes compared to the more significant issues that’d cause problem behavior. The Tiktok consumption is just another symptom, and if it wasn’t tiktok it’d be some other escape mechanism.
To me, the article seems lazy, complaining about a superficial problem without spending effort to even consider or mention underlying root causes that could give rise to it and must be solved first.
And to be clear I’m not blaming the parents, they’re not the “root cause” I’m talking about. They’re victims too, in large part. They and their kids are stuck in a harmful cycle, and people with the ability to break that cycle are unwilling to do so.
What does “on tiktok” mean?
Unsupervised with their own accounts? I feel like that’s difficult to believe. Watching a few tiktoks before dinner with their parents? That doesn’t really strike me as a problem.
While I don’t entirely disagree with the author, I feel like this is a far too superficial look at what is a larger societal problem: young people have checked out.
He makes the argument that mental health is in decline, and I’m not sure if that’s true or we’ve just removed the stigma from therapy… But of more concern to me is that young people just DGAF, and I think that’s because older generations have left nothing for younger generations to inherit, besides ruin. Kids 5-7 aren’t gonna understand that, but they’re gonna pick up the vibes from their parents.
I think it’s a good idea, but we have to be careful about the effect of malicious instances pumping up their own user reputations and lowering reputations of other users, maliciously.
Ideally these instances would be defederated, but sometimes it’s just communities within an instance that it is problematic. There need to be solutions to this, as well as a way for the reputation system to retroactively change reputation upon defederation of an instance, or banning of a user.
I feel like there should be a mechanism to block posts but allow comments
Typical capitalist race to the bottom to appease investors with short term decision making
There is nothing about the Vision Pro that prevents that from happening other than they haven’t implemented it.
The ability feature to automatically give you information about arbitrary things you’re looking at isn’t a requirement for “true AR”.
I’m not really defending vision pro, it seems pretty limited. But that doesn’t make it “not true AR” and MR doesn’t mean “crappy/inferior AR”
They are the same thing. I think that they’re confusing it with the difference between “passthrough” AR (you watch an opaque display showing video of the outside world) and “see through” AR (which uses a transparent display that you look through to see the outside world).
You’re describing the difference between “passthrough” AR, and “look through” (or “optical”) AR.
AR and MR or more pretty much interchangeable.
They got a hololens, but like 8 years later, for the same price, and still just as useless.
I love it when you talk dirty like that 🫦
And that’s how it spreads.
One of us. One of us. One of us.
That’s not agile.
It’s not bad, it’s just not agile. Agile exists for projects where that simply isn’t possible. Its sacrificing a bit of potential best-case productivity to ensure you don’t get worst-case productivity.