Transtronaut

He's actually trying to make them destroy each other so his handlers for the UAE can fill the power vacuum afterwards.

I wonder if they're just telling him it succeeded, to keep him from ordering another one.

The new analysis contradicts the social media platform’s claims that exposure to hate speech and bot-like activity decreased during Elon Musk’s tenure.

They might both be right. I know my exposure to hate speech and bot-like activity decreased since I stopped engaging with that platform.

I can't speak from real life experience, but one movie that actually handles this really well (as far as I can tell) is The Quiet Man, during a fight.

There's an example of an impromptu, casual bet between two individuals who are understood to trust one another, where they actually set the odds and agree formally, and it all happens very smoothly and naturally so as not to be boring:

"Five to one on the big chap"

"Given or taken?"

"Given"

"Taken"

Handshake

IIRC, they don't actually show them agreeing on the wager itself, but a later scene shows the outcome and lets you calculate it for yourself. These characters are established to know one another, so I figure they either have a known amount between them that they default to for casual bets, or they just determined that off camera.

There is also an example of the more chaotic, mass, unplanned betting, where a character who is already established to be a jack of all trades known to the community pulls out a notebook and takes on the role of bookie. I think they even show the odds being adjusted in real time as the fight progresses, but I don't recall for sure.

Makes me wonder if the actual public squares, sans idealization, were also a place for morons to be morons and heart each other for being morons.

Sounds like they went considerably beyond Blizzard, at least in treatment of workers.

If I recall correctly, it's also the name of a horse in Robin Hood: Men in Tights. Thanks to this thread, I finally get the joke, all these years later.

Turns out you're so pro-poor, even your grammar is poor. :P

If the user has indicated that they are not interested in new features, it means they do not care about new features. They don't want to know about them, or they prefer to find out proactively in their own time. If you still insist on ramming notifications down their throat at that point, you're not doing it for the user. You're doing it for yourself.

In a world without dark design patterns, there would be a single pop-up when you first install the application, to ask if you want notifications and/or suggestions for new features. If you click "no", it should never bother you again unless you go into a menu and opt in. Anything beyond that is inherently predatory.

Ideally, that pop-up wouldn't even exist. They could just have a collective "don't bother me again" checkbox on every non-essential notification, so you can easily disable it the first time they become relevant. If your user has already indicated that they are not interested, any further pestering is essentially harassment.

Yeah, exactly - that's what I mean. Hypothetically, if 50% of the violence done by women involves men, then the 82% is really more like 91%, and the violence attributed to women starts to look more and more like a rounding error. This meme is getting more rational all the time. It's almost like bringing statistics into it does nothing but present a lame fig leaf to cover up the underlying, endemic problem that inspired the meme in the first place.

It also makes me curious what percentage of that 18% was directed towards men as opposed to women. All that would be left in this hypothetical is women-on-women violence, so anything else should be discounted for a fair comparison.