• 0 Posts
  • 56 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: May 19th, 2024

help-circle






  • Money isn’t going to solve the burnout problem

    In my opinion, the biggest source of burnout is actually our dayjobs.

    Respectfully and meant humorously, WTF are you talking about then.

    Yes money can solve it. It can solve FOSS devs needing a day job, it can solve not having enough people to do deal with FOSS related nonsense.

    I’m really annoyed when people say that and somehow have “shame” when it comes to demanding, let’s say, $50 million from FANG to maintain their project. Just ask. And then because of that shame, they think “asking for money” is asking a few fellow FOSS enjoyers for $1-5 a month and then that amounts to like $3.50 and then yeah of course that won’t solve any problems.


  • This is not the answer to your question, but a comment. Sorry, I am aware that it may not be helpful to you.


    I don’t think TOS are very hard to read once you’ve read one or two, if you care, you should just read the TOS.

    For example, if you’re concerned about EU-US datatransfer, the privacy policy has to outline who data is shared with, so you can skim it and see if they mention sharing data at all, or if they are doing it with specific companies, or just “partners”.

    On the internet and social media, you have to transfer the rights to your content to the social media content, because it’s the only way they’re allowed to store, replicate and distribute your comments or post.

    That kind of stuff. And those paragraphs mostly look the same.



  • Sure would be neat, but it always comes down to funding.

    Ads? No thanks, I’m here bcause the fediverse is not doing that.

    … and content.

    Can you be super fast and exclusive and sell that? not really, all the super fast stuff is delivered by random people who witness things, or press releases that are piped directly into the feed anyway.

    Can you be super high quality and sell that? That’s just a regular website and people haven’t believed in “it’s a website, it’ll make money for sure”, since 1999




  • If I search “Iron” on wikipedia I’m looking for facts

    Not what I meant.

    The point is: there is an established group of editors, with established rules and preconceptions, an established interpretation on what good sources are and what a neutral perspective is and isn’t, and there is no chance of changing those and that is why I have no interest in interacting with wikipedia in any constructive way.

    I could talk about politics too, I picked video games because I know those articles are also bad.



  • Yes.

    Yet behind the celebrations, a troubling pattern has developed: The volunteer community that built this encyclopedia has lately rejected a key innovation designed to serve readers.

    But not that one, because rejecting AI 1) is not a generational rejection and 2) it is correct to reject it.

    What I think is or will be the generational problem: the community that maintains it and decides what is being accepted or rejected is an “in group” that it is impossible to break into with conflicting ideas. For example, I do think the gaming, game mechanics and game development related pages can be vastly improved. But I don’t think the people responsible for those pages are interested in the changes I would suggest.

    All the wikis for different games could just be on wikipedia. But they’re not, probably because they were rejected, because it’s “not relevant”. Well, some people decided they were relevant after all and they made their own wikis for those. The outcome is tribalism based fragmentation, because of differences in opinion of who values what and what should be preserved and what shouldn’t.