Yeah, I've long thought that the syndication that happens via server-server communication could be replaced with a smarter client. As far as UI goes, Twitter seems more like a browsable network, e.g. @ IDs, follower/follows lists, and those features seem to be key, not the specific transport. Would like to see something like Mastodon but based on RSS.
Natural history museum in LA. They have a big exhibit on theropods and pterosaurs and show the birds that possibly evolved from them. Birds are dinosaurs under all the usual biological classification schemes. Similar phenotypes, similar genotypes.
Pelicans seem to evolve from pterosaurs but ostriches seem to have come from theropods. Since those are both birds, I would guess pterosaurs and theropods are just as closely related as pelicans and ostriches.
I wouldn't want a tool like this deciding what I do or don't see. I thought that was part of the reason from moving away from centralizing platforms. What benefits does this provide over simply not following people?
Hi Doreen, I simply stated "what you failed to understand" because you posed the theory that I was either a troll or "failing to understand" (your words) that my post offended people.
Yes I've admitted that the content of my post may have offended some people. The issue I'm raising is that that shouldn't matter. What matters is if I was using openly rude, disrespectful, or antagonistic behavior. My original comment did none of that and was in good faith and was meant to provide an interesting sociological take on a current event.
I don't want a megaphone or a soap box for the random scientific studies I reference on this forum. I simply do not want to be censored for citing data with which people disagree. If I was intentionally being rude or disrespectful then I would understand the censorship, since that is verbal assault, but that is not the case here. I will not self-censor for the sake of upvotes. I'm a respectful adult who believes in liberalism, free inquiry, and civil discussion, no other conditions need apply. If the HN mods disagree then it can't be honestly claimed that this a forum that stands for free inquiry and civil discussion.
I think what you are failing to understand is that merely offending people is not punishable by censorship in a liberal society. "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I antagonized no one, merely provided an observation. Flamebait is not an objective term, anyone can claim anything is flamebait if enough people agree. Indeed, I was flaming no one, it was only used as a smear against me to justify censoring me and there is no greater insult to free inquiry than that. As long as you condone the censoring of my comment based on what you perceive is poor tact, you oppose the foundational principles upon which our modern liberal society is built. As long as HN maintains the flag on my comment, they too oppose those same principles.
Fair but they effectively did censor my comment if they didn't honor my request to unflag it. In any case, do you think that comment should have been censored? If so, why?
Hey, no need to insult my social skills. I get that maybe the content of my post offends some people but it is scientific fact. There's a difference between being intentionally rude / antagonistic, and civilly presenting data that some people find offensive. Just because people find the data offensive, that shouldn't be cause to censor the data on a forum for civil discussion, should it?
Those comments cannot be seen, they are marked as "[flagged]" if you browse with cookies off, at least. I disagree that it was off topic, it was directly related to the post I was replying to. I understand that people might disagree with the content of the post but that shouldn't be cause to censor it on a forum for civil discussion, should it?
Admittedly I'm not an expert on the censorship rules of the site but I was under the impression that the mods had the ability to unflag comments. It was never made clear to me why that comment was flagged or why it was considered "flamebait" and that's why I consider HN's censorship rules arbitrary. There was nothing rude or personally antagonistic or unscientific about that post.
I'm respectful and polite in this forum. I've been blocked simply for saying things with which some largish group of down voters don't agree. I am trying to leave this site but boredom always pulls me back :) That and I really do like to browse the posts and comment, engage with, and challenge people. Here's one such arbitrarily blocked comment:
You can't read it but I screenshotted it for you. Dang calls me a troll simply for asking him to clarify and tells me to leave the site. "Legalistic Gambit of the troll," as if I'm trying to win some game. All I want is to be treated fairly on this site. It was very hurtful.
The word kill is also pretty offensive. Police kill many people of color daily. Slaves were killed by their owners. I think more inclusive verbs are disable or quiesce.
I'm not. I didn't realize people thought Breitbart was racist. Forget conservatives. Let me rephrase, can you really not imagine an intelligent decent person subscribing to Breitbart?
Not trying to instigate a flame war, thanks for correcting my language if that's what it seems like. I'm earnestly trying to understand what it is about Breitbart that causes Jacques to have the opinion that the people who produce are either stupid or cynical manipulators (not my words). Let me rephrase, can you really not imagine an intelligent decent person subscribing to Breitbart?
I'm not trying to frame this as an emotional affair. Feelings was just an expression in that case. I don't have an ulterior motive here, I'm sincerely asking in good faith. What are your objective issues with Breitbart? Nothing in Breitbart seems that extraordinary to me. Let me rephrase, Can you really not imagine an intelligent decent person subscribing to Breitbart?
I don't think that conservatively biased media is necessarily either stupid or cynically manipulative. Bastards is a strong word. Can you really not imagine an intelligent decent person genuinely holding conservative beliefs?
You seem to have strong feelings against Breitbart. Why?
Breitbart is hardly unique in being
accused of being a tool for manipulating voters for the business-owning elite. In any case, it's just a conspiracy theory. You have no reason to believe the people at Breitbart don't sincerely believe in the issues they report on.
When the client side ruled, and hosting was democratized. Anyone truly could have had their own websitr. Now everyone uses facebook, Twitter or squarespace.
Isn't bikeshedding defined to be "arguing about trivial details." The first article wasn't about arguing. Also since semantics are trivial, this is meta.
You can make that happen :) FOSS drivers for Nvidia/AMD/intel gpus could serve as a basis for the hardware interface you target. I would probably target an Intel GPU.