Mastodon is to Twitter as Lemmy is to Reddit.

laughs in WASM

The way the score is calculated is hidden from the public

I mean.....technically, I guess, the specific parameters are hidden? But the meaningful actions - the ways in which you can improve your score - are extremely clearly advertized.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly a passionate advocate for the system - but it's nowhere near as obfuscated as people claim. And if you accept the premise that there needs to be some algorithmic way to evaluate someone's creditworthiness, "their past reliability in repaying debts" is a pretty reasonable choice.

My friend, that's positively milquetoast in comparison to Stewart Lee.

I would love to know more! Feel free to vent.

Arguments about the definitions of Communism or Property aside - yes, my farm. As in, the one I work on. The possessive pronoun, despite the name, sometimes connotes association rather than ownership - I do not own my school, my country, my street or (despite what Republicans might wish) my wife.

In my first couple months, I broke Amazon so that no-one in Europe could buy video for a few hours. On a Friday, right before going on a week's vacation.

The way that the ensuing investigation and response was carried out - 100% blame-free, and focused on "how did these tools let him down? How can we make sure no-one ever makes that same mistake again?" - gave me a career-long interest in Software Resiliency and Incident Management.

People complaining about a highly-upvoted post: we did it, Fediverse, we're finally at feature-parity with Reddit!

God I fucking hate merge commits.

I think you're being a little too quick to judge (no pun intended) by dismissing these scenarips as assigning blame. The point of these problems isn't to decide whose "fault" it is or who is the "bad guy" - they are thought experiments to explore what is "right" to do, according to various schools of thought.

In the original trolley problem, or in this one, it's totally fair for you to say "whatever happens, it's not the chooser's fault - they were forced into this position, and so they cannot be to blame". That's fine - but even if they are absolved of blame the question still remains of what is right for them to do. If your answer is "whatever they want (because engaging with terorrists' demands is always wrong)", or "whatever is the opposite of what they're being pressured to do", or "whatever is the least action", or "whatever rminimizess suffering", or "whatever minimizes undeserved suffering", those are all still answers to the question, without any implications of blame or guilt to the chooser!

My unpopular opinion is that DLC is not, in and of itself, bad. If you don't want it, don't buy it! If you do want it - great, no problem! In a world without DLC, you either have to buy the whole game, or not. If you tried it and didn't like it, you have wasted the whole price of the game. Whereas in a DLC system, you've spent the price of the base game, but that's effectively just a fraction of the total game price. You risked less.

What is a problem - and what I think most people who think they're mad about DLC are actually mad about - is charging a price that isn't commensurate with the amount of content you get. If a full game is "worth" $60, and it's split up into a $20 base game and 4 $10 DLCs - great, everyone is (or, should be!) happy. But if the publisher charges $60 for $20-worth of base game and then charges for DLC on top, you should be pissed - but you should still be pissed about that mispricing even if the DLC didn't exist. Yes, DLC is the reason why that pricing strategy is adopted - but that doesn't mean that DLC itself is inherently bad. There are possible implementations that are not flawed.

From my knowledge of them (which is sadly non-zero), I think Ben Shapiro fits the first description better.