zalack

I know you're being sarcastic but I still want to punch you. So fucking sick of that shit.

I think better algorithms wouldn't be a waste of developer resources. At the end of the day, the post feed algorithm is the core product, IMO.

Figuring out how to lower the weights on highly active subs is a good idea. As is ranking smaller subs' content appropriately.

For all it's faults, Reddit's algorithm was pretty good. There was always a decent mix of small and large subs on my feed.

Kbin's post ranking overall seems better than Lemmy's and that was a major factor in me choosing it as my home base.

Totally ignoring the evidence provided that it does make a difference.

Also, to state the obvious, tall people aren't a marginalized group in our society so it may not activate the same nueral pathways that lead to bias.

I would argue the people in this thread flipping out about being asked to refer to minorites in a way that doesn't have a ton of historical baggage and has been empirically shown to promote better empathy responses are the over-sensitive ones, lol.

Like, it's all right to get corrected now and then. The difference between acting bigoted and being okay is literary just a simple "I didn't realize that was wrong, I'll try and not do that in the future. Thanks for checking me on it".

I grew up in a conservative suburb in the South and got saddled with a lot of unfortunate ideas. I make mistakes, use questionable terms, and misgender people by accident somewhere regularly.

I've literally never had a problem if I apologize and affirm it was ignorance on my part, or a mistake I know I make and am working on, but that I am trying to be better. Just be open to change and don't be a dipshit about it and it's not an issue.

If you think it's an issue it's likely that you're being a dipshit about it and making things harder for yourself than they need to be.

Because it leads to measurable difference in empathy response:

A 2008 experiment researched teenagers' perception of epilepsy with respect to people-first language. Teenagers from a summer camp were divided into two groups. One group was asked questions using the term "people with epilepsy", and the other group was asked using the term "epileptics", with questions including "Do you think that people with epilepsy/epileptics have more difficulties at school?" and "Do you have prejudice toward people with epilepsy/epileptics?" The study showed that the teenagers had higher "stigma perception" on the Stigma Scale of Epilepsy when hearing the phrase "epileptics" as opposed to "people with epilepsy".

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2008.01899.x

The human brain is weird and wired wrong for modern life. The best way to master our worst impulses is to try and do small things that nudge it in the right direction.

If you've ever done Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, it's a similar idea. Identify behaviours you can practice that help you think the way you want to think.

Turn out it's the definition of rational as it can be empirically supported. From further up in the thread:

There actually is proper data showing that this kind of thing can actually make a meaningful difference, and surely we're all evidence-driven people here, right?

A 2008 experiment researched teenagers' perception of epilepsy with respect to people-first language. Teenagers from a summer camp were divided into two groups. One group was asked questions using the term "people with epilepsy", and the other group was asked using the term "epileptics", with questions including "Do you think that people with epilepsy/epileptics have more difficulties at school?" and "Do you have prejudice toward people with epilepsy/epileptics?" The study showed that the teenagers had higher "stigma perception" on the Stigma Scale of Epilepsy when hearing the phrase "epileptics" as opposed to "people with epilepsy".

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2008.01899.x

Not an exact parallel, but the point stands that these kinds of language patters can genuinely influence perception.

How did this get around the recent Supreme Court ruling? I'm curious about the legal mechanism being employed here.

I love when this happens. As a kid we used to go to this restaurant a couple times a year where my dad would order a "drunken ribeye", but I thought it was "drunken Rabbi" until I was 14.

My SO thought "evasive maneuvers" was "a vase of maneuvers" when she was a kid.

My favorite part of when this happens is hearing the person's internal explanation they've been telling themselves for what it means.

Same situation as Relay for Reddit on Android.

It's because the producers want their counterparts spending time, energy, and perceived social capital negotiating over it rather than the things the Producers actually worry about having to give up.

IMO it's pretty transparent, but creative people are pretty scared of AI right now so it might be a good bargaining tactic if they can get rank and file Union members to tie up the negotiatiors by reacting.

Crowd extensions are already pretty common with traditional VFX techniques.

I worked in Hollywood editorial for a bit and, IMO, the producers are playing up the AI stuff so that said stuff can be given to the writers and actors as a "victory" instead of the real spectres in the room:

• streaming residuals need to get the same payout and transparency as home video and syndication did

• streaming numbers need to be made available to creators to facilitate the above.

• the 'mini-room' system that totally disconnects writers from the productions they are writing for needs to be broken down.

I wasn't implying that you shouldn't be able to. Just sharing my opinion on this particular example.