fiasco

Then you should head on over to 4chan.org, where you can be an obnoxious child to your heart's content.

We'd need to see their financials, which is tricky since they aren't public yet. There's also the issue, Steve lies about everything, so should we believe he's telling the truth?

But my guesses would go like this:

Since they've been spending other people's money, they probably haven't been watching expenses closely. Their P&L is probably dominated by payroll and rent. I can't help but feel that programmers are drastically overpaid, which is a symptom of the same issues, that there's a lot of other people's money chasing a finite supply of techbros.

The reason I think programmers are probably overpaid, by the way, is the number of man-hours they allegedly put in, versus the quality of their output. Reddit is a particularly shocking example of this.

In any case, the other people's money doctrine is to grow into profitability, which means burning money on spurious shit until some magic happens. Not exactly a winning business model.

Individual instance owners can block Meta instances from federating (exchanging data), and they absolutely, 100% should do so. If enough instances block Meta, it'll be like they don't even exist.

The bigger issue is that corporations can present a united front, while federations cannot. This is why hegemonic forces tend to win; as the author says, there's already division among kbin/Lemmy users about whether blocking Meta is a good idea. You can be damn sure there isn't similar division among Facebook leadership about whether to destroy kbin/Lemmy.

Is it better or worse that I think someone made this by hand?

The castles are renovated into gaudy commercial establishments—one is a café, one is a privately-owned museum, one is a residential condominium, and one is torn down to make way for a strip mall.

That makes at least a little bit more sense... Not to imply it makes sense, it just makes a little bit more sense.

I remembered after posting, the children of 4chan were implying the fake sinking thing was some sort of insurance fraud. But that only works if you also take the ship out of service, since otherwise the insurance company will be left wondering, well where did this other ship come from?

But this is one thing at the heart of conspiracy theories: they don't actually think about how the world works. It's like, one of the big conspiracies on 4chan at the moment is ESG—environment, social, and corporate governance scores in investing. They think that this is a social engineering effort, as though Blackrock cares about anything other than money.

If you're curious what ESG is really about, it's a con to make stock-buying more palatable for millennials. But since the children of 4chan don't know anything about anything, it's gotta be Jewish social engineering.

Do you know what the deal is with that? I couldn't figure it out, and one of the problems with /x/ is that they assume you already know what's going on with their conspiracies.

Seatbelts don't eliminate the possibility of dying in a car crash, but you should still wear one.

It's a staggering display of stupidity that some people think vaccines must completely eliminate risk, or else they're useless. The unredacted portion is just about how some people do get symptomatic COVID despite being vaccinated. Never mind that their symptoms are, on average, much milder than those of unvaccinated people, or that their chances of getting "long COVID" are much lower.

This is, in any case, the perspective of someone who's never had to take any responsibility for any single thing in their entire life.

What else are they gonna put in their tailpipes?

We routinely take photos in other frequency ranges. It's easy enough to find infrared photographs, made easier since not only is there film that exposes IR, but digital cameras are naturally sensitive to it so you just need to change out some filters. But you know, astrophotography often uses different frequency ranges, since a lot of stellar phenomena emit different kinds of radiation.

The bigger question is, would an alien without eyes at all be aware of electromagnetic radiation? And conversely, what phenomena are there that would be obvious to aliens but we just don't know about, because out sensory organs don't predispose us to being aware of them?

I browsed 4chan /x/ earlier today, so here's where they are...

The obvious one relates to the fact that founding members of the Federal Reserve were on the Titanic, and it was intentionally sunk to (something incoherent about economics). The submarine was sunk for similar reasons.

The Titanic didn't sink, but it was some other vessel, and They had to sink the submarine so the truth wouldn't get out.

There are deep ocean aliens, and the sub had to sink to conceal that fact.

Those are the ones I could remember. In any case, it's always the Jews and the CIA.

Okay, so I'm reasonably neurotypical I guess, but I'm browsing All. And a neurotypical perspective may help, or maybe it won't. And I'll warn you in advance, this may be a bit harsh.

The first basic fact is that the agenda is set by the people who actually do the work (and to a lesser extent, the people who fund the work). The quoted post says the poster is not a developer. So what we're talking about here is "backseat driving," someone wanting to impose direction without providing either work or money. I don't use the term "impose" lightly; the quoted post accuses everyone else of not being open to discussion, of being narcissistic.

The other basic fact is, unless you're in the thick of it, you don't know what's really going on. There are usually reasons things are the way they are. Sometimes those reasons are bad, sometimes they're good. But particularly when we're talking about complex engineered systems, and doubly so when we're talking about computer software, even modest changes usually ripple out and have systemic effects, or require systemic reengineering.

But this is why advice usually isn't welcome, because an advice giver doesn't know the details of what they're advising on. Unless they begin by learning the problem inside and out, obviously, but that takes a ton of time and effort.

Finally, speaking as someone who knows programming very well, the gulf between "why don't you just do X" and the actual work required to do X, if X is even feasible and possible, is enormous. Furthermore, everything comes with tradeoffs, and someone suggesting X is unlikely to understand the tradeoffs, or the tradeoffs that have already been made, and how X might affect those.

All this said, yes sometimes suggestions are ignored or rejected because of ego. This is doubly true when someone is part of an institution, government for example, and wants to defend their turf or they don't wanna spend "political capital" on something outside their personal agenda. This is also true of open source software; if you really wanna see some gnarly shit, try and figure out why LibAV split off from ffmpeg.

If you want the real answer to the question, it is possible to be in charge. The danger with being in charge is that you become accountable for the things you've overlooked. You have to be able to survive your mistakes, then figure out how to avoid them in the future. Being in charge is incredibly taxing, but this is a choice we're all condemned to make: accept things more or less as they are, or put yourself on the line.