wow, fascinating.

(i watched the video to the end; i know it’s Monday afternoon and i still have work to do but I deserve it!)

wanting to advertise for the little guy in general is kind of pointless, it feels good until you realize that in a healthy ecosystem there are just always going to be more little guys–the middle guys are selected from larger pool and the big ones are selected from larger pool of the middle guys … it’s the evolution. and evolution is all about niches and being good enough.

the kind of link lists linked in the OP are actually awesome, but they are best served in larger number and in context. especially, if eg. i see someone make an insightful post or article and turns out the same person has a list of links, then it’s usually a treasure trove of more posts, articles, insights and even projects and communities. and yes, if i gave the link list to my mom it would be completely counter-productive, regardless of whether someone is a “little guy” or not. the littleness is not the point, the relevancy is.

and sure you could make link lists that are assorted ranging topics with the main criterion “the author found it interesting and want to share it and/or come back later to it”, and while some of that cake is eaten by micro-blogging sites like mastodon or bluesky (esp. the sharing and quick discussion). outright simple, structured lists also have own kind of charm.

Vast, vast majority of sites that exist are small. And significant portion, if not most of them are going to be actually not that interesting or outright junk. Who’s going to decide which are good enough to show up on the list? And how are you going to maintain them over time—if you succeed in making a small site discoverable, now what, is it going to be on the list forever? If not, on what kind of criteria you’re going to maintain it, and how are you going to measure it?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying people should built these lists, they absolutely should. But there is no one-size-fits-all solution and creating something that resembles one-size-fits-all is going back to the twisted, weird system that so many of Lemmy users (including me) are happy to be away from.

I see no problems with the screenshot you posted. Of course that “KIA” comment is extremely insensitive at best, but we all know that any sort of open Internet community has this problem.

If you find Reddit more interesting, then you have already solved the problem for you: just go discover things there. If you find your Lemmy homepage boring, maybe sub to different communities and set up your page to show subscribed only (that particular setting helped me a lot).

If you want to create some sort of smart automated strategies that get you to have the the cake and eat it too (eg. remain subscribed to all of those communities but filter posts for based on some sort of diversity criteria eg. “no star trek more than once a month”) then please go ahead and experiment: the content is freely available using computer-readable formats, you can learn to code or hire someone… I bet someone is already doing something like that. You don’t need to solve the problem on higher level, and doing so is going to do more harm than good.

But as you say, it’s not an easy problem but I think it shouldn’t be. No individual should be able to impose restrictions like that globally. We are each responsible for our own diet. (And for lemmy.world thank mods for keeping out the shit sprayers.)

Yeah I’m old enough to remember it. Also resuming or seeking would be risky as sometimes it would erase the prized buffer or break the player altogether. Sweet times…

I don’t remember the snake, though…

do potatoes have fight-or-flight response?

that’s the wet dream, fictional version of crypto.

that’s the idea that made me excited about crypto 15 years ago. (stupid young 31 old me 👶 )

thanks, always learning (not a native)

there are regulations and stuff, she’s not a bird, she can’t just land anywhere

you can always go out and touch grass…

i mean avoiding opinions is hard on the Internet.

Fight Flight Fawn Freeze Flop

You’re right!

but It’s Fight Flight Fawn Freeze Flop Fart

I’m 46 so the last one is becoming my favorite. Just fart and walk away…

foreachk

i know, right?

if only there was a way to tell other people about these websites in … some kind of an … internet forum. and if the forum was on a nice, not too bot-infested, privacy-respecting, free, distributed and federated platform. that would be cool. one can wish…

i was considering NSQ but did not mean it as a “serious” question but rather a funny observation.

on a second thought, you might be right.

on a third thought, i don’t want to overthink this

on a fourth thought, if it’s inappropriate for this forum i’m perfectly fine (no bad blood) with flagging/removing it, but i’m also not willing to re-post it again soo…

(and you are right, no, i was not in shower when i thought of this)

on the thumbnail he looks like a rabbit (looking to the left). so thanks for the 2-in-1 aww!

i assume was that some kind of way to pass time when the video was loading?

because for me, nowadays, the video loads almost immediately so … i don’t know how fast you can play snake…

i don’t remember that but get what you mean, there used to be time where it was more common for sw developers to put a little bit more love into what they are doing. I mean they still are, that did not actually to away, it’s just that they are outnumbered by the sheer volume of the more “serious, professional, sterile” output.

as much as I hate big tech, to be fair, creating and maintaining a huge scale thing like YT is a feat of engineering. and I have to respect that often it requires being pragmatic (ie. saving every byte and removing anything that could possibly fail). so I understand the negative correlation, the huge things probably won’t be also the fun things.

which will alert the rest of the tribe

…of babies? awww!

are you saying:

people used to use word “feminazi” as a short for “feminist nazi” but, ha ha, there were no actual feminist nazis back then but now there are?

if so, is it either:

• people used a short form of a phrase that referred to something that did not exist (an extraordinary assumption which i find hard to believe)
• people used it for real Eva Braun-loving (?) chicks that were real nazi’s and real feminitsst … and now there is another group of people that we need this term for?

that’s blindingly insightful and infuriatingly incoherent: the purest form shower thought, indeed 🙃

deleted by creator

Scary stuff. I hope it ended well.

… wait, dd it? Have they found you? Or are you still wandering the streets right now? (Blink twice if you need help.)

Sure but that might be because by phrasing it like that you are already priming by mentioning condescending.

Some people seem to be permanently primed to view any kind of explanation condescending, whether it’s the arrogance of the youth or some kind of trauma or maybe result of being under high stress. Other people (like me) tend to have obsessive compulsive explanatory thoughts, so I’m almost always in the state of explaining something. Most likely just to myself because I’m alone.

(…aaand, here we go again, I’m explaining stuff to the Internet now.)

The act of explaining something in a situation that does not prompt explanation, or in a way that does not adapt the explanation properly to the “explainee’s” state of mind and curiosity, thus either wasting time or creating a situation when the lack of understanding on part of “explainee” is likely to be viewed as lack of intellect, while the true answer might be just lack of truly giving a fuck about the specific focus of the explanation.

Explaining just for the sake of being the explainer (whether the motivation to be the explainer in the first place is a social game of status or rather a side effect of perpetual state of learning by Fenyman method) can be a risky move, but I think that in many cases it’s more about the content of the explanation: is it a monologue or a true interaction? is it adjusted to the context? Is it accurate?

But I think what makes bad explanation infuriating is often what would make any interaction infuriating. And the word “condescending” is sometimes used just because of the context of explanation, while the real problem is that the speaker is just off in their own world, and not realizing it.