🎓 Doc Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@qoto.org

@PattyHanson

I cant imagine that going as fun as you'd imagine. I really just expect him to say something like "we use condoms", I dont think most people are super private about that.

@mcv

My thoughts exactly, the twitter and facebook algorithms arent bad because their algorithms, their bad because they work for the best interest of FB and twitter, and not its users.

@randahl @admin

@damngoodtech

Thats actually very common. Remember the arctic circle isnt the same as saying antartica, its a much bigger area and includes areas that expiernce summers.

For example 30 - 40C (yes all the way up to 100F) have been recorded int he arctic circle in the past. On many occasions.

@ingalls

@admin

> The point of the Fediverse is that WE DECIDE WHAT OUR OWN FEED IS... no algorithm, no "AI" deciding what we see and what we don't see.. We decide, with our own hashtags and filters, etc.

Yes but I'd argue these tools are lacking.There should be algorithms, but these algorithms should be under **our** control. We can turn them off if want, or configure them how we want.

Algorithms arent evil when your the one in control.

@mcv @randahl

@mcv

For sure.

@randahl

@randahl As far as I know that only shows trending hashtags, not trending posts. a post can havbe no views but if it uses a trending hash tag it would show up.

Also we dont neccesarly want an algorithm that simply shows us what is popular to others. A good algorithm will show me what would be popular for me specifically. As in what **I** will like and want to see, not what others like and want to see.

@dcdeejay

Those type of blanket statements are reductionist and generally harmful.

@randahl One of the biggest up sides **and** down sides is the lack of algorithm. Most of us want an algorithm, we just want one that works for us.

I'd be all for an algorithm that users can control, tweak, turn off, select settings, etc. I would love to have the better content show higher as long as it is defining "better" based on what I want.

@Savvyhomestead

True... I could also remember a time when a liberal could criticise the democrats without being called a Nazi.

These two things arent unrelated.

@lonelyowl13

He saw a video from smarter everyday. He was upset that he felt it was promoting creationism, where I me and several other people from qoto and other servers on that thread were saying they didnt see it. Despite being polite he got irate and defensive and eventually rage quit or something (seems he blocked me, possibly).

Now seems he found some random dude ont he internet who had the same opinion as him and he thinks that means I should apologize or something ::shrug::

@Ambulocetus

@Ambulocetus

I did.

All I see is that you found someone somewhere o the internet who agreed with you. Why would that make me want to apologize?

@cobratbq

Haha, I try :)

@cobratbq yea, I am not defining pooping as just the expulsion of waste, that happens at every level. I am referring to pooping as the storing of waste in a sack that gets released at some later point. It presumes multicellular and the first evolution of a digestive tract. My guess is the first real poop was little more than a sack where cellular waste was collected so some water or other resource can be reclaimed before ejection.

@Timurkaa@shitpost.poridge.club Most likely the first creature to poop didnt think much of it. If i had to guess it was some multicellular creature who just happened to create a cavity to capture the waste and reclaim some water or other resource from it. It likely wouldnt have developed any sensory nerves to detect or know its pooping till later in its evolution.

I cant stop thinking about the fact that at some point during evolution there is some poor soul that was the first creature to ever poop. Could you imagine how traumatic it must have been to be the first living creature ever to have to poop :)

@TheOldGuy

The issue isnt if they have the legal right, we all know they do.

The real reason this is an issue is because the USA, and I think others, offered to help with weaponry on the condition that the weaponry provided would not be used to advance into Russia.

Now I think this condition was an unfair one, so I dont really mind that they ignored it. But the issue isnt about law its about what the USA should do, and what consequences there will be for the Ukraine. If it means we cut off support that may be the end for Ukraine.