This is just avoiding the issue of having a short attention span.

I used to be easily distracted during online lectures yet had little difficulty following live lectures. It’s a fundamentally different experience, for whatever reason.

Also, the attention span has to be trained. And training it by working without a distracting computer sounds like a good idea.

I understand that most of the rhetoric towards white people that I believe could be interpreted as “racist” are made by the direct victims of white colonialism/racism

On Lemmy? Nah.

With all due respect to Guido, creating software does not have the same weight and responsibilities as leading a country.

to those who downvoted, why?

Because of this part:

they must be an only child or have siblings within that age as well, otherwise the interests are not overlapping enough to spend time together

No, because “benevolent dictatorship” can’t exist (the only benevolent action of such a dictatorship would be self-abolishment).

I have no idea what “classic literature” this refers to?

It’s been moved to the archive but is linked on top of the talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&oldid=1310806574#Including_the_video / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Killing_of_Charlie_Kirk/Archive_2#Including_the_video

Looks like they’ve decided against inclusion. It’s also unlikely the video meets “fair use” standards so they’d have to delete it anyway…

They had a whole edit war about whether it should be included and locked the article.

Kirk’s killer seems to have used some large calibre weapon which probably made it look so particularly brutal and bloody.

Yeah, you could keep usual moderators as the basis and ultimate arbiters, but it would be, at the very least, interesting to try your approach. E.g., anyone can check the mod queue and be randomly assigned to moderate a recently reported post, and to avoid abuse or mistakes it could require 2 or 3 people agreeing on how to resolve something.

This you?

You wouldn’t, by any chance, provide examples of that censorship and how it can be traced to FBI/CIA?

Sure, but the duration of the ownership doesn’t matter a whole lot in this sort of situation. If you’ve missed the news about the selling when it happened, it’s relatively unlikely you’ll learn about it afterwards. I don’t periodically do a background check of all the devs and owners of my apps.

Reminds me of how after WW2 people stopped calling their kids Adolf or even changed their name Adolf into something else. I mean, I’m not saying Zuckerberg is literally Hitler or something, but it sure is funnily similar.

I’m on Facebook because many people I communicate or work with and pages and groups relevant to my interests are active there.

It can be noted that the original comm on blahaj.zone gets drastically less traffic than before, and I don’t think anyone uses the .world comm at all. Most activity is at /c/[email protected]

I love that comparison.

Wikipedia has been shit for a long time

it started off great and then went to hell

This becomes obviously and extremely dumb once you try to imagine how this “going to hell” actually looks like. What you’re saying is, if you opened a Wikipedia article 15 or 20 years ago, you’d find “great” content, but in the meantime that article has become “shit”. Pure nonsense.

In an another comment you say it’s bad that you have to double check the sources. But when it started, Wikipedia barely used sources at all! Just look at some random articles from the early days and see for yourself. These days an overabundance of sources could well be more of a problem for editors of big article.

There are thousands of recorded, proven cases of incorrect and malicious updates to pages on there.

Thousands? Probably tens, even hundred of thousands! You know how they’re “recorded and proven” most of the time? Through the built-in system that tracks every change since the site was created, and allows editors to check who did what, verify and reverse the bad edits.

The co-founder also said Wikipedia is “broken beyond repair”… back in 2007. Already in 2006 he founded a website that he wanted to compete with WP. Is that before or after your “went to hell” era? My impression is, the guy is just butthurt the project has grown beyond him.

As a relatively active WP editor, I agree that you absolutely shouldn’t take it for granted, and there’s a lot of absolutely frustrating crap on there, and there’s much that one would want to see fixed and improved structurally. But I really can’t tolerate this sort of nonsensical criticism.

what would they be?

This is more or less everything I know about how image formats work.