Impronoucabl

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

The comic is out for preorder now as a hard copy too! (it's already available free online)

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

Before an instance does something malicious, how do you know it will be malicious?

Even if everyone there running it, & participating is pure of heart, how can you be assured that haXXors won't simply break in to take advantage of that trust you've given them?

Banning bad instances is a reactive stance that only applies after damage has been done. Can you convince the corporate overlords to take that risk? And it only increases as the fediverse gets more popular, and more instances get trusted.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Yes and no.

Decentralized IDs exist, but will almost never be accepted by any large reputable institution.

Why trust every indie site to be 100% truthful, and definitely not full of malicious haXXors?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago

Paraphrasing a bit from the scientific source:

If the population of Canada used email signatures for a year, ~30 people in developing countries will suffer a premature death within the next 100 years.

That 100% should have been in the article in some clear form or another.

I'm not against the points of the article, I'm against it being so poorly written that AI slop is just as good.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Why not post that link instead of AI slop then?

[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 month ago (15 children)

This is AI slop.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Anytime you do something good, you lose something of yours in doing so, be it time, attention, wealth, etc. Having good done to you, you only gain.

That being said, good acts, and evil outcomes are not transactions, and thinking about it that way only leads to the belief that life is a zero sum game.

Sure society full of Evils exists, but they're not stable. Do you want to live in such a society? Or do you want to live in one where the people do good?

Obviously you're thinking of living in a good society, but then not contributing your part - but that's how a society slowly turns Evil, from the absence of Good. You can try chasing the good society, but as more good societies see your non-existent good acts, the harder it will be for you to join.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

The point is that you'd also like to have good things done to you.

It really depends on how much you have to do, to be considered as doing 'good'. Do you consider returning a shopping trolley as a good act? It's a simple, small act that you do have to go out of your way to accomplish, and it brings some utility to others, which you might unknowingly be a recipient of.

That's not to say you're expected to return every trolley in the carpark, or that all the evil corporations are actively trying to exploit this for free labour.

Society requires that people do good to exist, while continued Evils tend to slowly destroy their community.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

This really depends on your tap water; in some places tap water is clean enough to work, but it seems yours is not. If you want something to just set and forget, you'll probably need to do more localised research. E.g Hardness, turbidity, etc.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago (18 children)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 4 months ago (2 children)

One of the defining properties of 0 is that anything multiplied by it results in 0.

So in your operation, without being given the actual result, I'd say no, the question is ill-defined.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

Well, yes.

It doesn't have to be a technical feature though.

 

Taking a bit of a breather, here's the next exercise!

Random Prompt: Frying pan

Here is your task:

#Write a piece as to be unsatisfying as possible.

Some tips:

  • The goal of this is to practice build tension, even if there's no way to satisfying release it.

  • Focus more on the how/now than the payoff later.

You don’t have to post your piece, but if you do, I’m happy to provide some basic feedback. I encourage others to do the same, so we can all learn from each other.

Bonus: If there’s a particular thing you want to work on, let me know in the comments, & I’ll see if I can tailor future tasks to accommodate our needs.

 

Continueing on in the spirit of self improvement, here's the next self help exercise!

Random Prompt: Surfing dinosaur

Here is your task:

#Write a three (or more) person conversation without any dialogue tags.

Some tips:

  • If giving each speaker a distinct/unique voice is too hard, try giving them unique tone, or positions instead.
  • Alternatively, start with dialogue tags, then remove them in the edit.

You don't have to post your piece, but if you do, I'm happy to provide some basic feedback. I encourage others to do the same, so we can all learn from each other.

Bonus: If there's a particular thing you want to work on, let me know in the comments, & I'll see if I can tailor future tasks to accommodate our needs.

You have two weeks until the next task. (If you're not done by then, don't worry, I'll keep checking old threads.)

 

A great resource from one of the most successful authors, I would highly recommend anyone writing fiction to watch. It's a long listen, and some parts are focused on sci/fantasy, but it's one of the most useful writing tips on the internet regardless. There's even some publishing tips too.

 

In the spirit of self improvement, let's kick off a new community with a writing exercise!

Random Prompt: Backyard Scientist

Here is your task:

#Write a description (or scene) without any adjectives, or adverbs.

Some tips:

  • Use stronger verbs
  • Use specific names

You don't have to post your piece, but if you do, I'm happy to provide some basic feedback. I encourage others to do the same, so we can all learn from each other.

Bonus: If there's a particular thing you want to work on, let me know in the comments, & I'll see if I can tailor future tasks to accommodate our needs.

You have two weeks until the next task. (If you're not done by then, don't worry, I'll keep checking old threads.)

 

So a while back, on a bus ride to/from home, I wrote down a terrible piece of writing (linked)

Let's dive into why it was so bad.

  1. It wastes the reader's time.

Multiple times in the piece, the same information is conveyed with no additional nuance, context, or subtext.

Repetition to emphasise a point is one thing, but doing it for no benefit is another.

  1. It assumes the reader is dumb.

There's one especially guilty quote from the piece.

Bob had seen faces before.


Because humans are such good pattern-finding machines (as compared with actual computing machines), many explicit descriptions can be inferred from astoundingly little text.

Tom Scott has a great video on "the hidden rules of conversation", and one of the ponts he makes is the 'Maxim of Quantity' - Give as much information as required, and nothing more.

"Alice" & "Bob" are both common english names, and as such, we expect them to be normal english speaking humans, conversing on Earth, without any prompting. Any text that affirms that convention is unneccessary.

I would call this technique of bad writing 'exposing the subtext', but don't think it is universally bad. It could be useful in more complicated, longer works, if the reader is not expected to keep track of multiple (possibly changing & conflicting) POVs.

  1. It tells us one thing, but shows the opposite.

She thought about it for an moment, and then shouted at Bob. Angrily. Very angrily. She said “Because my feelings are telling me to say this.”

Adverbs in general are bad because they tell instead of show, and 'very' is possibly the least desciptive adverb in the English language.

'Angrily' is the telling word here, but the pause before the actual shouting is showing us that Alice is not - anger is not an emotion that causes you to think further before acting.

Furthermore, her dialogue is not written in an angry tone. Good dialogue should convey the tone by itself, but in this case the anger only comes from "shouted" - another telling word. The tone itself is neutral - and therefore calm.


Feel free to discuss &/or tear it to pieces.

 

An old article I wrote

view more: next ›