cheers's recent activity

  1. Comment on <deleted topic> in ~talk

    cheers
    (edited )
    Link Parent
    Exactly. I'll be fine with not owning firearms when the government doesn't have them, either (and everyone else, along with the suppression of the capability to manufacture them). The threat of...

    They are for killing and oppressing.

    Exactly. I'll be fine with not owning firearms when the government doesn't have them, either (and everyone else, along with the suppression of the capability to manufacture them). The threat of force, though not necessarily the execution of it, is necessary for the long-term maintenance of mutual agreements in a reciprocal manner.

    3 votes

  2. Comment on Laptops with 128GB of RAM are here in ~tech

    cheers
    Link Parent
    Intel ME/AMT. It's a massive security risk, offering ring -3 access to anyone that can exploit it. It doesn't help that it's completely proprietary, and very little was known about it until...

    Intel ME/AMT. It's a massive security risk, offering ring -3 access to anyone that can exploit it. It doesn't help that it's completely proprietary, and very little was known about it until recently. See How to Hack a Turned Off Computer, or Running Unsigned Code in Intel Management Engine (pdf warning).

    7 votes

  3. Comment on Laptops with 128GB of RAM are here in ~tech

    cheers
    Link Parent
    As far as Qubes is concerned, it's a shame these only come with Intel CPUs, considering they're ridden with vulnerabilites like MeltdownPrime and are more vulnerable to Spectre-esque side channel...

    As far as Qubes is concerned, it's a shame these only come with Intel CPUs, considering they're ridden with vulnerabilites like MeltdownPrime and are more vulnerable to Spectre-esque side channel attacks (relative to their AMD counterparts). Weakens the isolation offered by Xen by a fair amount, doesn't it?

    1 vote

  4. Comment on Laptops with 128GB of RAM are here in ~tech

    cheers
    Link
    I usually ssh into my desktop from something more portable for compute-heavy tasks, as opposed to lugging my desktop around in the form of a 5-pound block of magnesium and silicon. I personally...

    I usually ssh into my desktop from something more portable for compute-heavy tasks, as opposed to lugging my desktop around in the form of a 5-pound block of magnesium and silicon. I personally can't see the point of having something like this, outside a few edge cases, when internet is fairly ubiquitous. Would anyone who owns one of these things mind telling me what they use it for? Genuinely curious.

    2 votes

  5. Comment on Future of CopperheadOS looks murky in ~tech

    cheers
    Link
    /u/strncat on Reddit (I know, I know) talked about the matter in r/CopperheadOS yesterday. There's (allegedly) been a legal disagreement between him and the CEO over the direction of the company....

    /u/strncat on Reddit (I know, I know) talked about the matter in r/CopperheadOS yesterday. There's (allegedly) been a legal disagreement between him and the CEO over the direction of the company. As the lead (and only) dev of COS, he's not planning to contribute any further code to the project.

    More here: https://old.reddit.com/r/CopperheadOS/comments/8qdnn3/goodbye/

    5 votes

  6. Comment on What's wrong with fluff? in ~tildes

    cheers
    Link Parent
    Yes, and it's also their job to abide by rules, so the community is aware of how and why they are being moderated. Having the aforementioned rule would essentially negate all others-- it'd give...

    Isn't that pretty much the job of a moderator?

    Yes, and it's also their job to abide by rules, so the community is aware of how and why they are being moderated. Having the aforementioned rule would essentially negate all others-- it'd give them a massive loophole to arbitrarily remove any post they don't like, for any hidden reason other than the given. Rules that are not defined clearly for both sides lead to decreased transparency and an increased disconnect between the two groups.

  7. Comment on What's wrong with fluff? in ~tildes

    cheers
    Link Parent
    Right, but you want to encourage posts that have some discussion-provoking content within them, inherently. You don't want to allow posts that could provoke discussion as a coincidental byproduct,...

    I never suggested that just such a photo would be sufficient. I would consider any post that led with that to only be a meaningful discussion if the comments were more than "Awww!" or "So cute!", or variations thereof.

    Right, but you want to encourage posts that have some discussion-provoking content within them, inherently. You don't want to allow posts that could provoke discussion as a coincidental byproduct, you want to encourage posts that will provoke discussion. I'd say the average r/aww thread with a photo of a dog is telling.

  8. Comment on What's wrong with fluff? in ~tildes

    cheers
    (edited )
    Link Parent
    Honestly? I don't know. Perhaps users tagging a post as a repost, or as "noise," would be enough. Perhaps a set of guidelines need to be created that describe the qualities of repostable and...

    Honestly? I don't know. Perhaps users tagging a post as a repost, or as "noise," would be enough. Perhaps a set of guidelines need to be created that describe the qualities of repostable and non-repostable content (responses being dependent on current events, etc). But using Google as the criteria would essentially leave the decision up to moderator discretion; in other words, moderators would be allowed to remove posts at will under the guise of "reposts." It'd overshadow all other guidelines and etiquette placed on moderators.

  9. Comment on What's wrong with fluff? in ~tildes

    cheers
    Link Parent
    No, but I think it's the opportunity for new viewpoints to be expressed that makes resposts (some of them, anyway) worthwhile. Many discussions tend to also be augmented by current events, even if...

    Can a discussion be "meaningful" if substantially similar points of view have already been posted elsewhere in similar discussions?

    No, but I think it's the opportunity for new viewpoints to be expressed that makes resposts (some of them, anyway) worthwhile. Many discussions tend to also be augmented by current events, even if they're not strictly pertinent to a current event, which encourages new viewpoints to be expressed.

    If a meaningful discussion is something that you define as entertainment, as I quoted

    No, you quoted me saying that meaningful discussion is a category in entertainment, not that entertainment is a category in meaningful discussion. A cute animal photo could be entertaining, and meaningful discussion could be entertaining-- this does not mean that a cute animal photo would be equivalent to meaningful discussion.

    Finally, I have work in the morning, so I'll need to table this until I'm available later. Goodnight.

    Good night, good talk!

    1 vote

  10. Comment on What's wrong with fluff? in ~tildes

    cheers
    Link Parent
    Yes, and it's the job of the community to ensure they're only given the tools and guidelines to enforce them responsibly. Your conception of "if it can be found on Google, it's a repost" lends...

    Yes, and it's the job of the community to ensure they're only given the tools and guidelines to enforce them responsibly. Your conception of "if it can be found on Google, it's a repost" lends itself to irresponsible moderation.

    1 vote

  11. Comment on What's wrong with fluff? in ~tildes

    cheers
    (edited )
    Link Parent
    That's entirely subjective. Personally, certain categories reposted topics elucidate new and interesting responses each time they're posted. And besides, this is remediable on an individual level...

    What you call reposts, I also call fluff, which I define as pointless content.

    That's entirely subjective. Personally, certain categories reposted topics elucidate new and interesting responses each time they're posted. And besides, this is remediable on an individual level through the tag system. If you don't like it, you can simply hide it.

    Wikipedia has robust discussions around their entries.

    I'm a decently active Wikipedia editor, and talk pages are not robust or accessible. Again, this would kill the site, probably through a combination of fragmentation and alienation. Lots of them (talk pages) tend to be uninteresting to read through, being both highly pedantic and highly technical. I don't think Tildes is aiming for that degree of ivory tower-esque exclusivity here. There's meaningful discussion, and then there's exclusive discussion. The latter is what StackOverflow and Wikipedia are aiming for-- the former is what Tildes is aiming for. By its somewhat democratic nature, Tildes cannot have overwhelmingly exclusive discussion. I think you're confusing an information-oriented site with one aimed at entertainment-- entertainment in the form of meaningful discussion, but entertainment nonetheless.

    4 votes

  12. Comment on What's wrong with fluff? in ~tildes

    cheers
    Link Parent
    Yes, practical considerations like, say, not giving moderators the overwhelming ability to arbitrarily enforce a rule.

    Yes, practical considerations like, say, not giving moderators the overwhelming ability to arbitrarily enforce a rule.

  13. Comment on What's wrong with fluff? in ~tildes

    cheers
    Link Parent
    I'd be fine with this. There's a middle ground to be had with reposts, and taking the nuclear (StackOverflow) option is counter-intuitive to discussion. The other option is banning users from...

    Until it reaches a point of equilibrium

    I'd be fine with this. There's a middle ground to be had with reposts, and taking the nuclear (StackOverflow) option is counter-intuitive to discussion. The other option is banning users from posting the majority of the time, unless it's for news or strictly current event-related topics. It'd kill the site.

    It could be argued that removing reposts keeps the quality of the site higher.

    Sure, if you think having Tildes turn into a glorified wiki would be healthy for discussion.

    1 vote

  14. Comment on What's wrong with fluff? in ~tildes

    cheers
    Link Parent
    What do you mean? Did I say they shouldn't be? The incidence of reposts declines as the site exhausts unoriginal topics.

    Now, why should our reposts not be considered to be fluff?

    What do you mean? Did I say they shouldn't be? The incidence of reposts declines as the site exhausts unoriginal topics.

    1 vote

  15. Comment on What's wrong with fluff? in ~tildes

    cheers
    Link Parent
    Erm... how? The rate of "unoriginal" content would inevitably decrease as new posts are checked against older ones. Also, as a counterpoint to a strict no-reposts rule, look at Stackoverflow. The...

    Even if the search to see if it were previously discussed and hashed out were only restricted to this site, the repost rate would rapidly increase as users join and post content

    Erm... how? The rate of "unoriginal" content would inevitably decrease as new posts are checked against older ones. Also, as a counterpoint to a strict no-reposts rule, look at Stackoverflow. The quality of the site has actually gone down over time, because every other post gets removed or locked for unoriginality by a moderator that seems to have read the entirety of the site. It's actually quite hard to discuss anything on there anymore.

  16. Comment on What's wrong with fluff? in ~tildes

    cheers
    Link Parent
    Then you'll be able to filter them out with the tagging system. I don't see a problem, honestly.

    Then you'll be able to filter them out with the tagging system. I don't see a problem, honestly.

    7 votes

  17. Comment on What's wrong with fluff? in ~tildes

    cheers
    Link Parent
    You can find basically anything on Google. Rules around reposts would become more or less arbitrarily enforced at that point-- it'd grant far too much power to moderators. Ours shouldn't be...

    You can find basically anything on Google. Rules around reposts would become more or less arbitrarily enforced at that point-- it'd grant far too much power to moderators. Ours shouldn't be considered special, but there're practical considerations to take into account when talking about unoriginal content.

    2 votes

  18. Comment on What's wrong with fluff? in ~tildes

    cheers
    Link Parent
    If something existing on the internet is the threshold for being "new," then there's nothing new to be had. Again, I think restricting the scope of originality to tildes.net would be the most...

    I can show you almost identical topics from Google in different places

    If something existing on the internet is the threshold for being "new," then there's nothing new to be had. Again, I think restricting the scope of originality to tildes.net would be the most streamlined possible solution, and it'd gradually drive up originality on the site as people post, rather than enforcing practically arbitrary rules around reposts.

    There's a good reason that kind of content is so successful.

    And there's a good reason large sites exist to host that content-- the purpose of Tildes isn't to compete with them. They don't promote anything worth discussing, regardless of what your criteria for meaningful discussion is.

    5 votes

  19. Comment on What's wrong with fluff? in ~tildes

    cheers
    Link Parent
    How do you distinguish between what's "new" and what isn't? To someone who doesn't use Linux, a Linux distro discussion could be entirely novel. I do get your point, though, and once search...

    How do you distinguish between what's "new" and what isn't? To someone who doesn't use Linux, a Linux distro discussion could be entirely novel. I do get your point, though, and once search functionality is added, I'd like to see a general attitude (if not a rule?) against blatant reposts, especially if replies to a reposted thread aren't context-dependent on current events. I just think that keeping the scope of originality restricted to the site itself would be preferable, logistically.

    2 votes

  20. Comment on What's wrong with fluff? in ~tildes

    cheers
    Link Parent
    I don't think any of those are fluff. Topics don't have to be strictly serious to not be fluff; I consider the threshold to be whether or not there's any meaningful discussion to be had around...

    I don't think any of those are fluff. Topics don't have to be strictly serious to not be fluff; I consider the threshold to be whether or not there's any meaningful discussion to be had around them-- there's rarely anything substantive in the comments section of an r/funny or r/aww post, for example. That's what I consider fluff, and anecdotally, that's the general sentiment around here, as well.

    5 votes