Grumble4681's recent activity
-
Comment on Half-baked idea for metered inline image allowances in ~tildes
-
Comment on Why Microsoft’s war on Windows’ Control Panel is taking so long in ~tech
Grumble4681 LinkI chart my significant negative experiences with Windows starting with Windows 8. I know Microsoft has all kinds of issues these days, they are pushing Copilot too much, they implement annoying...I chart my significant negative experiences with Windows starting with Windows 8. I know Microsoft has all kinds of issues these days, they are pushing Copilot too much, they implement annoying advertising in the OS, the audacity to try to force people into Microsoft accounts when they don't want them, and surely much much more. I've read enough stories about the management of Microsoft to believe it's not a great place to work. The bloat of the company itself is much like many companies these days.
I can forgive some aspects of bloat and what not of Windows if they weren't doing all the wrong things elsewhere. Because at least in the case of much of Windows bloat, I expect that it's in part coming from an effort to support all the various hardware and software that has relied on Windows for years and years. This article even says that's part of why the control panel migration is taking so long.
“We’re doing it carefully because there are a lot of different network and printer devices & drivers we need to make sure we don’t break in the process,” explains March Rogers, partner director of design at Microsoft.
On the one hand, supporting so many things made Windows more sticky, everything people bought and used worked on Windows and rarely worked on anything else.
On the other hand, starting with Windows 8 in particular, I feel that Microsoft decided to leverage the stickiness of Windows to bolster other business segments that they failed on. They dropped the ball hard with Windows Phone, consequently I'd argue that resulted in them dropping the ball significantly on touch screen interfaces entirely which meant they failed to create a Windows tablet market, and that also cut them out on hybrid/2-in-1s for awhile until they launched the Surface many years later. Windows 8 was the start of this process, the shoehorning of a user interface into desktop/traditional laptop space when that UI was designed for and made sense on touchscreen devices because they failed to address the market earlier in a better way.
This is also around the start of the Microsoft Store, Microsoft accounts, and the attempt to position their desktop OS to capture significant revenue streams in a way that Android and iOS do. Of course they didn't push the Microsoft Store too hard because of the pushback, legacy issues and regulation issues that could have potentially come from that, but the other routes they took were smaller steps trying to make up for that.
I do wonder if Microsoft's business model for Windows wasn't scalable in the long run, how do you support an ever growing series of hardware and software for longer periods of time with a one-time license purchase. Even if you increase the price of the license, at some point it just becomes too much to be competitive. In all likelihood, they probably needed to find a way to separate the business of supporting legacy hardware and software while also developing a fresher OS that wasn't bound to all of that, and kept developing an OS people wanted to use instead of developing an OS that people felt obligated to use. This way the price would be lower for people that didn't care about legacy support.
-
Comment on US and Iran agree to provisional ceasefire with Tehran saying it will reopen Strait of Hormuz in ~society
Grumble4681 Link ParentRegarding the point where it says it will require coordinating with Iran's Armed Forces, CBC also says this, but additionally adds It's unclear if it means that this is part of their proposal...Regarding the point where it says it will require coordinating with Iran's Armed Forces, CBC also says this, but additionally adds
Iran's plan also includes charging fees for ships to pass through the strait and using the money for reconstruction, The Associated Press reported Tuesday. The New York Times reported that the fee would total $2 million US per ship.
It's unclear if it means that this is part of their proposal beyond the ceasefire, or if that means the ceasefire includes the agreement that Iran will charge fees for ships, and I can't find any sources that clarify this.
In this Time article, it details how ships have already gone through the strait since the war started by making agreements with Iran, which to me presumably means there are payments involved.
Several countries have turned to negotiating directly with Iran to strike deals allowing their vessels to pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Ships flying the flags of Pakistan, India, Thailand, Russia, Turkey, China, Iraq, and now Malaysia have safely traversed the strait at some point since the war began. The details of the deals struck with Iran are not yet clear. American allies appear less keen to negotiate individual deals with Iran to allow for the passage of their vessels, although France and Italy reportedly opened talks with Iran last month.
The IRGC Navy said on Sunday that the strait will “never return to its former state,” especially for the U.S. and Israel. What the new form of the strait will look like is not yet clear. As part of the terms of its 10-point proposal that Trump rejected, Iran reportedly said it would reopen the strait while charging up to $2 million per vessel, which it would split with Oman and use its share of the proceeds to reconstruct infrastructure destroyed by the U.S. and Israel.
-
Comment on Nvidia's DLSS 5 video taken down due to copyright issue after news site uses the footage in ~tech
Grumble4681 Link ParentI don't even necessarily see this particular instance as being the best evidence of Youtube's system being notoriously bad. What they probably need to do to fix it, if it isn't already available...Youtube's copyright system is notoriously bad, and their AI systems in general have been particularly bad in recent months. But this might be the most egregious example yet since all the videos were nearly a month older than the one uploaded by the news channel, and could easily be handled by having a single human looking at this mess at ANY point.
I don't even necessarily see this particular instance as being the best evidence of Youtube's system being notoriously bad. What they probably need to do to fix it, if it isn't already available anyhow, is give uploaders the ability to claim parts of their videos as copyright protected, and then disclaim other parts. Meaning they would be obligated to mark the video portion (and possibly audio depending on if they were talking over the video or not) where they used a snippet of Nvidia's video as not under their own copyright protection, while still protecting the rest of their video and audio. I also have no idea of how their content match/content ID system works to know the technical challenges that could be involved in doing this, and surely some other issues could arise from this implementation as well.
Even then, if you count that Youtube doesn't have such a feature like that already as a mark of how broken their system is, I don't necessarily agree in spirit. I agree on a level that it is broken, but it's broken because it's borne from laws that are so broken that there's really no way to address with technical solutions. Upon this incredibly broken copyright law, Youtube has constructed a system that attempts to balance the legal requirements of a completely fucking broken assortment of laws with the business gains to be had of streamlining some semblance of copyright management on top of it.
-
Comment on Donald Trump posted on Truth Social this morning that "a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again" as his threatened attacks on Iranian infrastructure loom ahead of deadline in ~society
Grumble4681 Link ParentCNN surprisingly had an article detailing the aspects of how the actions detailed in the threats would amount to war crimes and breaking international laws. Meanwhile from what I've seen from NBC...CNN surprisingly had an article detailing the aspects of how the actions detailed in the threats would amount to war crimes and breaking international laws. Meanwhile from what I've seen from NBC news, they have a whole article detailing everything Trump says, and one time I saw no mention of it being a war crime, a different article I saw just one single line that said something like "may be a war crime" and then they moved onto other things.
-
Comment on Used electric vehicles are a bargain right now in ~transport
Grumble4681 Link ParentA friend of mine has a first generation Nissan Leaf and he replaced the battery shortly after he bought it, I think like 4-5ish years ago. He had to get some translator for the battery. As far as...A friend of mine has a first generation Nissan Leaf and he replaced the battery shortly after he bought it, I think like 4-5ish years ago. He had to get some translator for the battery. As far as I know he hasn't had issues with the cooling of the battery.
The part that heats coolant for cabin heat failed recently, so he bought his own heater hose and ran it to the back of the car where he installed a diesel heater, hooked it up to the diesel heater and it worked. He even left the broken part in the loop, so the part that used battery power to heat up the coolant is still there but doesn't do anything, then he turns on the diesel heater which heats the coolant and then for the cabin controls he just turns on the heat with the fan I believe (or maybe just the fan, I can't recall now), and the fan blows air over the heater core like normal and blows in hot air to the cabin.
So he ended up getting extended range in the winter compared to what he got before because his cabin heat was no longer drawing power from the battery.
-
Comment on Megathread: April Fools' Day 2026 on the internet in ~talk
Grumble4681 (edited )Link ParentThis is correct. I saw this thread shortly after it was created and initially it did show Deimos as the user that posted it. Interestingly enough, it did have a userpage link for his name, and I...This is correct. I saw this thread shortly after it was created and initially it did show Deimos as the user that posted it. Interestingly enough, it did have a userpage link for his name, and I eventually clicked on his name from this post and noticed the post did not exist on his user page, which confused me. Then I came back to the post and refreshed and it changed from his name to Tildes.
-
Comment on "CEO said a thing!" journalism in ~tech
Grumble4681 (edited )Link ParentYeah I understand the newsworthiness of reporting what the US President says. To not report it is probably more irresponsible in some ways, but to not regularly mention alongside that reporting...Yeah I understand the newsworthiness of reporting what the US President says. To not report it is probably more irresponsible in some ways, but to not regularly mention alongside that reporting that the US President is a habitual liar and that most of what he says just isn't true is irresponsible. I recognize they probably have to word it differently for legal reasons, and that saying anything like that at all these days is enough to have the FCC or other government agencies on them, but come on.
I realize sometimes what he says turns out to be true, but I don't think that gives him a pass to report what he says with sincerity. I don't think it's unfair to dismiss someone off the bat if they lie 90% of the time. I recognize that dismissal means that 10% of the time it's dismissing the uncommon instances where he tells the truth, but I wouldn't rely on anything else that has a 90% failure rate.
-
Comment on Haliey Welch interview (Hawk Tuah) by Channel 5 in ~life
Grumble4681 Link ParentIt's not really an analogy of entrapment directly, just to make that clear. I specifically only wanted to distill underlying actions and motives of actors within the concept of entrapment rather...Entrapment is not a great analogy because it's only a crime due to the conflict of interest specific to law enforcement agents. If a private citizen baits someone into committing an actual crime you can prosecute for solicitation... but inducing someone to embarrass themselves? Shitty, perhaps; predatory, arguably; criminal, never, regardless of motive. Commission of a crime can't depend on the supposed victim's level of regret after the fact.
It's not really an analogy of entrapment directly, just to make that clear. I specifically only wanted to distill underlying actions and motives of actors within the concept of entrapment rather than specific definition of the word. So I'm not comparing the concept of entrapment directly.
Also just because it isn't criminal for a private citizen to do it doesn't make it not wrong. The conflict of interest is sort of the intersection that I'm talking about. If a private citizen were motivated by profit to bait people into crimes, perhaps the law doesn't reflect it, but I would expect that most informed people would recognize an inherent conflict there, just like with for-profit prisons.
Notably, there are actions that in ordinary conditions wouldn't be considered illegal in public but if done for profit motives, are illegal without permits. You can go knock on a neighbors door, it's not exactly public property to be at someone's front door but unless there's signage, it's generally legal to be on someone's property in that manner. However if you're going around knocking on a bunch of doors, I know of some locations that have laws passed with fines for going up to homes and trying to sell things without a permit. And there's of course sometimes limitations on the permits. So it's not even as simple as just giving money but actually attempting to limit or control the amount that type of action is happening when done for profit. Specifically these laws often exclude religious or political motives (not sure if there's a legal preemption to that or what) despite both of those in a more indirect way being for profit too.
You also often have laws restricting selling things in some public settings, or at least requiring permitting and conditions to act that way.
So I do believe that there's some framework in which it's accepted that people who are doing things for profit in public need to operate under different conditions.
-
Comment on I think Tildes moderators and admins may need to make a decision regarding how to handle Harry Potter related posts in ~tildes
Grumble4681 Link ParentYes, that's why I sensed this topic was a grey area as well. Meta topics regarding moderation in general don't fare well here from what I've noticed, if only because much of the information needed...Yes, that's why I sensed this topic was a grey area as well. Meta topics regarding moderation in general don't fare well here from what I've noticed, if only because much of the information needed to facilitate those meta topics is obscured and only available to Deimos. They're also ultimately pointless, even if data was available, the only person who has any authority and power isn't going to participate in it.
Deimos is generally regarded as a benevolent dictator which I think matches his intentions, but also an uninterested dictator as well. It seems to be more of an obligation than an interest at this point. I would personally not envy his situation in this specific aspect either, because there aren't really any good options. Perhaps if talklittle and bauke are still making progress one day someone may be able to spin up a successor to relieve him of the burden.
-
Comment on Haliey Welch interview (Hawk Tuah) by Channel 5 in ~life
Grumble4681 Link ParentOrdinarily I would agree, but if there are people actively prodding you for reactions for their own profit motives, I think that changes things for me. It's a level of baiting or provocation that...If you choose to consume any substance of your own free will, you are generally responsible for whatever actions you take under its influence.
Ordinarily I would agree, but if there are people actively prodding you for reactions for their own profit motives, I think that changes things for me. It's a level of baiting or provocation that doesn't exist except because there's a profit motive behind it. If you distill the basic idea of entrapment for example, that's a concept that we generally agree isn't ethical or potentially lawful, that law enforcement should be able to manufacture crimes by baiting people into crimes they wouldn't have otherwise committed. If you distill the basic actions of that, not the strict definition or legal concept of it, there's a unique and negative motive involved for the person committing the crime in that case, entrapment from law enforcement/government officials, and actions from the target that were induced by the person with a bad motive, and that is not good for society. If we can agree on that basis, I don't see how we can't extract similar ethical concerns outside of that. To be clear, the consequences from the situations can be starkly different so I'm not attempting to equate making a drunken statement to a Youtuber has similar consequences to being baited into a crime by law enforcement.
Is it good for society to enable people with profit motives to induce behaviors from people that wouldn't have otherwise occurred? There probably still is and I know there was some Youtubers whose whole shtick was more 'shock' content and such on the unsuspecting public. Go up and knock someone's phone out of their hand and then call it a "prank" or "social experiment" or a myriad of other actions they do to induce reactions from people for views. These particular types of actions can often actually be charged as crimes under current laws, though perhaps not all of them can be. In any case, sometimes the consequences for breaking these laws are not necessarily enough because they weren't initially made around the basis that someone would do it for a profit motive. The concept that someone would have a motive to do that because they can make tons of money on Youtube didn't exist when those laws were made.
Likewise, I think the concept of 'Everything is fair game in the public square' doesn't account for these more modern circumstances.
-
Comment on I think Tildes moderators and admins may need to make a decision regarding how to handle Harry Potter related posts in ~tildes
Grumble4681 Link ParentI don't take it as an attack. It doesn't bother me. I recognize that it probably puts me on the "bystander" side in that particular aspect. But I also know that in the way that I could be...I'm going to answer this since you asked, I think my answer is more mild than you might expect, but either way please don't take it as an attack on you or anything.
I would consider this behaviour to be on the "bystander" side of things. I think it's less ethical than someone who is raising awareness and trying to reduce the effectiveness of her hate. It's more ethical than someone actively supporting her. It makes me "think less of you" but it doesn't automatically make you "a bad person" if that makes sense.
I don't take it as an attack. It doesn't bother me. I recognize that it probably puts me on the "bystander" side in that particular aspect. But I also know that in the way that I could be characterized as a "bystander" in this aspect of this subject, you're a "bystander" on other aspects of other subjects. I know it because it's impossible for you to not be. So while you may think less of me, which I have no real control over so I can't worry about it that much, I can attempt to explain why I think that's not an ideal outcome. If I were to think like that, less of you because you're a bystander in something else, and you think less of me on this subject, what's actually gained from that 'trade' so to speak? What is lost because of it? To me, the loss outweighs the gain.
As for the last part, I do think there's an important aspect of awareness. If you bought her books 20 years ago and didn't know about her hate, I don't hold that against you. If you do so today, knowing full well what she will use that money to do, then I do think that's worse. It doesn't make you evil, but it would lower my opinion of you.
Fair enough. I agree with that. But if I were to take it to a more extreme level, and this is partly going back to why I think we can pick on anyone for anything, and it was brought up in the other thread where some comments attempted to equivocate on the issue, anyone who was subscribed to HBO Max or Max or whatever they were calling it at the time someone subscribed to it, was supporting JKR because they were supporting Warner Brothers and Warner Brothers owns distribution for Harry Potter and were the likely candidate to make continuing Harry Potter content. I don't even view it as much of a stretch to say that subscribing to HBO Max may have actually led to the creation of the show. I have never subscribed to HBO Max. Not because I thought they were going to make a Harry Potter TV series, but if I was not a 'bystander', I would have known better than to subscribe to HBO Max.
-
Comment on I think Tildes moderators and admins may need to make a decision regarding how to handle Harry Potter related posts in ~tildes
Grumble4681 Link ParentWell that's the reason why people haven't done it or are hesitant to do it, because there's no guidance or clarity. I could see it being the way you said as well, but even then, how do you know...Well that's the reason why people haven't done it or are hesitant to do it, because there's no guidance or clarity. I could see it being the way you said as well, but even then, how do you know what the "right way to go about that" is?
I think even this meta topic/question kinda reaches into that grey area as well. It kind of reinforces your perception, that perhaps having a 'meta' type conversation is the "right way to go about it", but who knows?
If I imagine the scenario where this meta topic didn't happen, and someone just re-posted the same trailer video again, how are we to assume anything would play out any differently? And if we cheat and use some knowledge gained from this meta topic, where people have stated that they will continue to comment about JKR on every Harry Potter post, then even more so we can assume it would play out very similarly. Given that Deimos didn't say what prompted his response or why he took that action, and because things can be deleted without anyone knowing what was said, there's very little clarity and just going back and looking at it alone isn't necessarily enough in part because things can be deleted with no evidence remaining of what was said or if that is what prompted it.
If I was Deimos, and I locked a topic because people can't discuss the topic in a manner that doesn't require my intervention, and then someone creates another topic that turns into the same thing that then requires my intervention again, perhaps I would see that as someone circumventing my action of shutting down the prior topic.
-
Comment on I think Tildes moderators and admins may need to make a decision regarding how to handle Harry Potter related posts in ~tildes
Grumble4681 Link ParentI see them as connected. I don't think it has drifted at all. "why her and not ____" is that I perceive comments moralizing and leveraging the "you're with me or you're against me" tactic, and I'm...But I'm not saying it's black or white so you're not really disagreeing with me anyway. If that's your only point though I think it's drifted quite a bit as your posts talk about all the other stuff I was responding to. Just my reading, and it's late so maybe I'm off. The hill I perceived was the "why her and not _____" that kept coming up.
I see them as connected. I don't think it has drifted at all. "why her and not ____" is that I perceive comments moralizing and leveraging the "you're with me or you're against me" tactic, and I'm saying that if everyone behaved the same way, we could all do the same thing to everyone else in here. "why her and not ____" is the idea that we could pick anything else and we could all do for every person in here if we knew enough about them. Which is an absolutely atrocious approach in dealing with people. No one wins, everyone loses, and everyone hates each other. All because it's a tactic designed to strong arm people who have similar ethics to yourself, but not exactly the same and not for every single subject. So "why her and not [insert subject that is personally impacting me in similar ways that other subject is personally impacting someone else]".
-
Comment on I think Tildes moderators and admins may need to make a decision regarding how to handle Harry Potter related posts in ~tildes
Grumble4681 Link ParentI don't expect people not to talk about them. It does not bother me that people express their ideas. What I don't like is when people simply try to reduce the situation into 'you're with me or...But I don't think the solution is never to talk about anything or to stop talking about something that matters to me (or you, or whomever) because there are bigger/worse/different problems out there. Harry Potter may be the equivalent of a stubbed toe in the scheme of the world. But if you've experienced or watched others experience a bunch worse for being trans, having someone say you should ignore the stubbed toe and let everyone talk about how great the thing that keeps hurting your toe is can still sucks.
I don't expect people not to talk about them. It does not bother me that people express their ideas. What I don't like is when people simply try to reduce the situation into 'you're with me or against me' and is often employed to try to make people feel bad that they don't go all the way to a level that the person deems the minimum line. It's not that they disagree on a fundamental level, it's that they don't agree enough. The 'you're with me or you're against me' is a cheap method of trying to guilt someone who is mostly in agreement into fully agreeing but just not quite as much as you want. You recognize they value similar ethics and know that it might make them feel worse if another person of similar values makes them feel bad for not being fully on board. This is probably the hill you perceive me dying on.
Notably, that tactic doesn't work on anyone who is completely in disagreement with you on a fundamental level, which is why it's generally not employed in that scenario. It's already established, they're against you.
In another comment chain you discussed with another user how you don't agree that some conversations can push people away from viewpoints, I already read the whole chain of comments there so I don't expect you to repeat yourself for my sake, but I do think the other side of that perspective aligns with what I'm describing.
-
Comment on I think Tildes moderators and admins may need to make a decision regarding how to handle Harry Potter related posts in ~tildes
Grumble4681 Link ParentThere's probably not anything stopping people from doing that, but presumably it's a grey area. In many places, that would be like circumventing moderator action. Since Deimos doesn't provide...There's probably not anything stopping people from doing that, but presumably it's a grey area. In many places, that would be like circumventing moderator action. Since Deimos doesn't provide reason for his actions and there's no specific outline for what should be the response to those actions, it's unclear.
The locked topic could be perceived as "don't talk about this particular thing ever again", but I don't necessarily think that is intended to be how it works either, in that case I assume it would be deleted. More so I think it would unofficially be "let things cool off before talking about that again". But who knows.
-
Comment on I think Tildes moderators and admins may need to make a decision regarding how to handle Harry Potter related posts in ~tildes
Grumble4681 Link ParentI get that you're not saying that facetiously or sarcastically, but the question was sort of rhetorical, or perhaps some other word that I don't know to describe what I mean. I don't think there...I get that you're not saying that facetiously or sarcastically, but the question was sort of rhetorical, or perhaps some other word that I don't know to describe what I mean. I don't think there is a 'bad' or 'good' side in that way, not that there isn't any ethical components at all, but rather that they don't squarely fall to bad or good. However I perceive some others to think that it does work that way, and the question is geared towards that. But it's also rhetorical because I don't believe in that black and white thinking. So it does not personally concern me what someone thinks of me on that level, not because I don't care about ethics but because I don't believe ethics can be simplified to that degree. I wasn't seeking a genuine answer for my own gratification or awareness, rather to highlight a contradiction that I felt was present in the posed scenario in the form of a question.
-
Comment on I think Tildes moderators and admins may need to make a decision regarding how to handle Harry Potter related posts in ~tildes
Grumble4681 Link ParentI don't think it does either, what I'm trying to convey isn't that you can only call out the worst offender that exists, it's the component where I think some people are going past just calling...I don't think "there are worse people out there" means you give up and only call out the single worst person in existence. Systemically this is a problem and we should do what we can to move the needle.
I don't think it does either, what I'm trying to convey isn't that you can only call out the worst offender that exists, it's the component where I think some people are going past just calling out JKR, they're calling out people who watch or consume Harry Potter/JKR content. Not to raise awareness, but on the fundamental basis that they see it as an either "You're with me or you're against me" basis. You're either an enemy, or an ally, and an ally wouldn't watch or consume any content that has anything to do with JKR. This is what I think is what results in getting the topic locked, which is what really underlies the basis of this post being created.
One of my points is that you can make anyone an enemy if you have that mindset. If we had access to everyone's purchases in here, we could make an enemy out of every single person. Even the brightest angel can be made into a demon if that's the mindset you approach it with. So why are we drawing the line that people who are still into Harry Potter are the enemies? Let me be clear, I don't think most people here are seeing it that way, but some of the more charged comments to me do convey that, and the overall voting activity and signal boosting amplifies the effects of those charged comments. It would be different if I was describing a comment that had no votes, and there was no other context around it that indicated people may agree with it, then I'd not even talk about it as though it has any kind of backing that isn't even worth mentioning.
Also I didn't initially start out talking about people being worse than JKR either, that only came from my last comment. What I am trying to convey with mentioning that is how fickle attention can be. The idea that someone who is worse can escape attention and the criticism that comes with it is illustrative of the fickleness. If it's not based on who is doing the most harm, then what is the criteria for who is being targeted? And again, I don't really care what individuals choose to put their focus on even if it's not the most logical to me. I think all of us have our own personal logic to who deserves to be boycotted or called out and I'm fine with everyone attempting to persuade others to see their point of view but that's also different than 'you're with me or you're against me'. That's not simple persuasion.
Just to be clear where I'm coming from on it, I don't care much at all about Harry Potter, I never read the books, have only watched the movies a few times and never paid for them, never watched Fantastic Beasts or had anything to do with any other things JKR has made, so I've probably contributed less financially to JKR than most people here. I also think there's a certain oddness to that too. I'm apparently not a fervent JKR hater to the point where I'm going to go out of my way to tell everyone how much she sucks as a person, and I don't have a problem with people who still consume Harry Potter content. So am I on the 'bad' side? Even if I have given JKR less money than the people who are now on the 'good' side?
-
Comment on I think Tildes moderators and admins may need to make a decision regarding how to handle Harry Potter related posts in ~tildes
Grumble4681 Link ParentI know you're being ironic about it to highlight the nature of the conversation about HP by further mentioning the discussion of the artist is off-topic, but since said artist is long dead and in...I know you're being ironic about it to highlight the nature of the conversation about HP by further mentioning the discussion of the artist is off-topic, but since said artist is long dead and in no way benefits from it at this point I imagine many people could probably discuss it without as many qualms these days.
I would be one of those people. I wouldn't in this scenario since it's not a genuine offer but also because I don't really respond to that kind of art, it does not really provoke anything to me. I'd probably look at it for a few seconds and then forget about it. It is possible that I've even seen it before and just don't remember it.
-
Comment on I think Tildes moderators and admins may need to make a decision regarding how to handle Harry Potter related posts in ~tildes
Grumble4681 Link ParentIf not for his name in the URL, that would have been simple for me. I wouldn't have recognized it and the signature isn't legible enough to notice it without studying it more (even then) and I...If not for his name in the URL, that would have been simple for me. I wouldn't have recognized it and the signature isn't legible enough to notice it without studying it more (even then) and I wouldn't have done that ordinarily.
The flipside to this is that the comparison was made without due consideration to the proposal's changes/limits to what reddit did. Reddit didn't have a restrictive limit on how often you could use it.
If we're going to criticize one response for mischaracterizing the response before it, it's worth pointing out that the response before it was a bit of a mischaracterization as well.
Where such a limit could falter is that I think it doesn't really scale well with user base growth. If reddit had limits for example, sure there would be substantially less image spam, but there could still be pockets where it happens more because there's so many accounts and not everyone participates everywhere. If most people only comment in big political posts, you might see an oversaturation of inline images in comments on political posts because they aren't going around to other posts to include inline images. In theory, if more people comment in political posts, the inline images are competing with more comments overall, so it may not seem overly saturated, but the issue can be that images take up more space for potentially less effort.
I doubt it would be a huge issue on tildes, but part of what keeps tildes user growth where it is now is the design of the site isn't very friendly to some types of uses. If you introduce features that don't scale well with user growth but those same features also help increase user growth, well it may not be a problem initially but it could lead to the problem happening later on.