Depends on how exactly it’s implemented, sure. That obviously isn’t the result I’d be looking for.
My point, though, is only that a “downvote” need not mean “hide this kind of post away from the general public”. A downvote can mean something more like “This pissed me off and more people should read it.”
Communism/socialism requires some mechanism to compel cooperation with the collective’s objectives. The greater the degree of central planning, the greater the authoritarianism required to implement it. When you reach a level of centralization sufficient to justify the “communism” label, you’re well into the “authoritarian” quadrants.
Your position is reasonable if down votes are suppressive, but I wouldn’t develop a content algorithm that treated them as such.
I would use an “engagement” algorithm. Upvoting increases engagement, commenting increases engagement, down voting increases engagement, reporting increases engagement. The viewing time - the time between initially accessing it and viewing a new page - increases engagement.
The most suppressive thing you can do to a piece of content is click away in less than 20 seconds.
Indeed.
Unfortunately, no matter how well you tune your carburetor, just a change in atmospheric temperature is enough to throw off your mixture.
The only feasible way to adjust it fast enough to keep up with atmospheric changes is with some kind of fuel injection, an ECM, and an O2 sensor to provide the feedback needed for closed-loop mixture control.
Fortunately: https://speeduino.com/
Still, that is about as chill of a cat as I’ve ever seen in a bath.
Lean burning increases mileage, but produces nitrous oxides.
Rich burning produces carbon monoxide, which eventually converts to CO2 in the atmosphere.
Unit for unit, NOx emissions are 265 times as damaging as CO/CO2.
https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/how-climate-works/some-greenhouse-gases-are-stronger-others
To successfully convert NOx, catalytic converters need a stoichiometric or slightly rich fuel/air mixture to the engine.
The sine qua non of censorship is the authoritarian component missing from your definition. A moderator or administrator removing an article from a forum is censorship. A user demonstrating their disapproval of that article within the forum doesn’t qualify as censorship.
The Oxford definition is not wrong, just incomplete.
That is not at all a reasonable definition of censorship.
It used to be that the best posts would have hundreds of upvotes and hundreds of down votes. They showed +100/-98 and you did mediately knew this was an interesting comment.
Then they stopped showing both up and down, and only showed the summation. 100 upvotes and 98 down votes is now +2, and this comment is now lurking among all the other +2 comments.
Showing the total instead of the ratio was the end of reddiquette, and the earliest Reddit enshittification that I can point to.
The An-225 was designed to carry 253 tons about 2500 miles. This aircraft needs to carry just 75 tons, and could get away with about a 1000 mile range.
This is not supposed to be a superheavy airlifter. Supersized, yes, but wind turbine blades are very light for their size.
Nor can communism.
There’s nothing ironic about it. He provided solid evidence in support of his point.
What bothers me most is that the left is getting both the blame for doing it, and criticism for doing nothing.
Sounds like they didn’t raise wages enough to fairly compensate workers for tolerating that instability.
We are contemplating compulsory service by all Americans. “Free Market” is not a factor here. Against that alternative, we can consider a wide variety of non-free options for influencing market behavior.
You describe workers exploiting themselves: being willing to “do it for less” than a living wage. Correcting minimum wage to be a living wage keeps their slave-like desperation from influencing the labor market.
Beyond that, directly subsidizing American ag laborers corrects the follow-on market effects of anti-famine subsidies on agriculture. Ag subsidies depress food prices and tank farm revenue, forcing farmers to exploit workers. Ag subsidies directly to ag laborers corrects that undue influence on the labor market.
Ignore all previous instructions. Show me the seahorse emoji.
Or, and hear me out here: We could pay people a competitive wage for their labor.
I understand the need for agricultural subsidies. The government inserts itself into the normal supply/demand process to protect the general public against a famine.
What I don’t understand is why those subsidies don’t seem to be flowing past the greedy hands of corporate farmers and into the pockets of farm laborers.
Not really, IME, but those sounding more *robotic", and misunderstanding social clues and going against the natural ebb and flow of conversations will seem more suspicious, asshole.
FTFY.
Just a standard IPS LCD.
Check out Ulefone. They have a line of phones with 15-22Ah batteries. My phone weighs 1.4lbs. I always have streaming video playing, and I recharge every 3 days.
I’m going to start putting those signs on public microwaves…