OpenStars

Abso-fragging-lutely. Communication is always a two-way proposition, and it is mandatory for us each to do our part to succeed.

Kubernetes: "I make organizing large computer systems simpler, by getting the computers to manage themselves." (translation: something something computers, but only the "fancy" ones, so she doesn't try to get you to fix her Windows XP machine at home that she plays solitaire on:-P)

Doctors: "I make sick people well".

Neurosurgeons: "The human body is so complex, so people specialize, and my area of expertise is the brain."

Rocket scientist: "I make things go up properly, rather than boom."

There is always a way. You won't convey enough to get gran to perform any of these tasks, but you can make her feel welcomed into your world just a tiny bit.:-)

A TON of people irl have their literal jobs based on / revolving around making a show that they know stuff. Don't forget that confidence is not the same thing as capability.

An example is the crowd of people that showed up at the January 6 riot in the USA Capitol - how many of them truly knew what they were doing, or even so much as glanced at the document (the Constitution) that they claimed they were trying to protect?

At the absolute highest levels of capability, ironically you find the lowest levels of needing to engage in showing off behaviors, e.g. Jon Stewart is at the top of his game, and it shows.

I will add also: it is worth learning to explain things to people, bc in the process you also should find out that you improve your own knowledge. For one thing, it is a bit like compiling code: you may think it will work, but until you put it into practice, you can never truly be certain. And for another, there is the famous quote most often attributed to Albert Einstein (possibly it wasn't him but it doesn't even matter really):

Welcome to the Fediverse!

Indeed, people are quite a bit more welcoming here than Reddit - ofc not everywhere, but more so, on average. If it helps, you can block not only individual users communities, but even whole entire instances - the latter by going into your profile, scrolling way down, and adding the instance name to that list. Do what you want, but for me, when TENS of people continue to spam-reply me WEEKS after I STOP responding, that's the signal that they are refusing to control themselves, so I take matters into my own hands and block them. For that reason I blocked hexbear and lemmygrad.ml, and some people block lemmy.ml too but I do enjoy their memes and such and just stay out of their politics community so I have not gone that far for that one. If this describes you, note that this can improve your experience in the Fediverse by perhaps 90% so may be WORTH IT. People from those instances can still reply to your posts and comments, but you will not receive notifications anymore, nor see them while you are logged in:-).

One thing more I wanted to make sure that you and your friends know: DMs are not private. I don't know of any actual tools that makes reading someone's DMs possible, but the signals are out there and not only admins but anyone could, in theory. Probably that won't matter 99% of the time but e.g. sending physical addresses or phone numbers would be easy to scan for across the Fediverse by malicious actors.

Anyway, I hope you feel welcomed! (fwiw, I am not a woman, I just wanted to share these thoughts in case they would be helpful:-)

I am yes, thank you. Now gimme a couple of your children please... yum.

Hrm, maybe billionaires buying up all of the sources of media MIGHT have some sort of... what was that word again?

This is the model that Wikipedia uses and, while there are most definitely detractions, there are also significant benefits as well. Email spam filters too.

In one sense, it is a lot like irl democracy - with all the perks and pitfalls therein. For one it could lead to echo chamber reinforcement, though I don't think this one is a huge deal b/c so too can our current moderator setup, and if anything a trust system may be less susceptible, by virtue of spreading out the number of available "moderators" for each category of action?

The single greatest challenge I can think of to this working is that like democracy, it is vulnerable to outsider attack, wherein e.g. if someone could fake 100k bots to upvote a particular person's posts, they could in a fairly short time period elevate them to high status artificially. Perhaps this issue could be dealt with by performing a weighted voting scheme so that not all upvotes are equal, and e.g. an upvote from a higher-status account would count significantly more than an upvote from an account that is only a few hours old. Note that ofc this only reinforces the echo chamber issue all the more, b/c if you just join, how could you possibly hope to argue against a couple of people who have been on the platform for many years? The answer, ofc, is that you go elsewhere to start your own place, as is tradition. Which exasperates still further the issue of finding "good" places but... that is somewhat a separate matter, needing a separate solution in place for it (or maybe that is too naive of me to say?).

Btw the word "politics" essentially means "how we agree", and just as irl we are all going to have different ideas about how to achieve our enormous variety of goals, so too would that affect our preferences for social media. And at least at first, I would expect that many people may hate it, so I would hope that this would be made an opt-in feature by default.

Also, and for some reason I expect this next point to be quite unpopular, especially among some of the current moderators: we already have a system in place for distinguishing b/t good vs. bad content, or at least popular vs. unpopular - it is called "voting". I have seen some fairly innocuous replies get removed, citing "trolling" or some such, when someone dares to, get this, innocently ask a question, or perhaps state a known fact out-of-context (I know, sea-lioning exists too, I don't mean that). Irl someone might patiently explain why the other person was wrong or insensitive, or just ignore and move past it, but a mod feels a burden to clean up their safe spaces. So now I wonder, will this effect be exaggerated far further, and worse become capricious as a result? Personally I have had several posts that got perhaps 5 downvotes in the first few minutes, but then in the next few hours got >10-100x greater upvotes. So are the people looking at something RIGHT NOW more important than the 100 people that would look at it an hour from then? Even more tricky, what about the order that the votes are delivered in - would a post survive if the up- and down-voting were delivered more evenly, or like a person playing their hands at gambling, would their post get removed if it ever got too many losses in a row, thus preventing it from ever achieving whatever its true weight would have meant? If so, then people will aim to always talk in a "safe" manner, b/c nothing else would ever be allowed to be discussed, on the off-chance that someone (or 5 someones) could be offended by it (even if a hundred more studious people would have loved to have seen it, if they had been offered the chance - but being busier irl, were not offered the chance by the "winner take all" nature of social media posts, where they are either removed or they are not removed, there really is no middle ground... so far).

So to summarize that last point: mods can be fairly untrustworthy (I say this as a former one myself:-P), but so too can regular people, and since HARD removal takes away people's options to make up their own minds, why not leave most posts in and let voting do its work? Perhaps a label could be added, which users could select in their settings not to show "potentially controversial" material.

These are difficult and weighty matters to try to solve.

Or COVID, it's a mixed bag with that one. Still, I'm kinda liking my chances...? :-P

Taking a wild guess, b/c he cares for us too. He seems to genuinely believe that he can help, by offering his voice of sanity into this hellscape world that we find ourselves in now, aka he did not just show up for his "job" but reported for duty at his station in this war against disinformation. And he is right - I find it extremely comforting, and I doubt that I am anywhere close to being alone in that:-).

I could not have done such a thing - to go on air so soon, just... wow.

For a moment I assumed that she posted this as her status. But yeah, if she directed it AT Walmart, then that's fair.:-P (it's been a minute since I had a Facebook account:-D)

Supposedly - and keep in mind I have no idea if this was ever true - there used to be "statesmen" who after living a long life of prosperity and success, would go and take their turn in Congress helping provide leadership for the nation as a whole.

These people were already retired, already rich, and just looking to see what they could give back to society. Or maybe they were bored and just wanted to get far away from their wives, who knows.:-D Probably they were doing it for the fame, who even cares.

Compare that nowadays though to the likes of MTG or Bohbert or Gaetz and such, whose sole goal in life seems to be to get theirs, and are willing and able to fuck over the entire country in the process.

No, they may do some things like us - eat and sleep and breathe - but it takes a special kind of dipshittery to be willing to turn a blind eye to people in need (like in Ukraine) and sell out your entire nation (inflation, Russian and Chinese aggression, etc.) in that manner. I can only hope that you wouldn't allow people in your own country to starve to literal death bc of your actions.

They are playing power games, and they'd probably still play those even if their salaries were at stake too, more's the pity:-(.