When a person says this, sometimes even if they do it in a positive tone, it's usually a way to verbalize more concrete concerns that you should address. For example, they might feel that you are always dismissing their opinions, that you don't listen to them in general, or they would simply like to get support when they express their views in a group so they get some recognition. In any case, they feel like you can do something to help but may not feel comfortable to express it or may not have fully identified it. If that person is important to you, you should be able to see what they want and take action.
pancake
joined 4 years ago
Brilliant. That makes a lot of sense, especially the more concrete the goals are. I wish it were easier to achieve, maybe the theoretical frameworks for this will be a reality in a few decades... Your implementation at least seems more plausible.
Okay, my answer is pretty removed, but I'd say I'd like a system where decisions are made by submitting automated proofs of their optimality, either absolute or over all submitted proposals in a defined time frame. The conditions of optimality would be pre-defined in a Constitution, and non-provable facts would be accepted or rejected via a decentralized voting system that would keep multiple diff chains and penalize e.g. voting for facts that are later proven false via a submitted proof. The proof system would hold all powers, but would be able to delegate decisions to entities under proven rules, which would come faster but possibly be overriden.
Absolutely. But I don't want to influence anything, just make the OP slightly happier and hopefully have a good read myself.
The reason some desires are universal is that they are achievable, thus it makes sense that an entity that looks for them exists. And we don't yearn for God, we yearn for happiness, empathy and staying alive, and some of us have created a conceptual entity that gives us an infinite supply of those.
I tend to upvote everything, no matter how much I disagree. I don't trust my own opinions or the authors', all of them are flawed in some way.
I'm in this meme and I ~~don't~~ like it lol.
Yeah, I fully agree. It should be something more along the lines of "sane defaults" (seeing all instances, automatic recommendation on signup, app-level migration) than "autopilot", but I will probably discuss this more once I have the time.
Could be done in apps. Managing federation under the hood, I mean. I'm an absolute smoothbrain regarding all things web (or mobile lol), but I use my barebones, cobbled-together desktop Lemmy client sometimes, so maybe I could repurpose it for other users?
If the site is not federated, it's not possible to leave it without also leaving all its content behind.
Nah it's great to have all of you here <3 I literally screenshot the (presemably) last time a post of mine actually went to the top haha. As long as users from the soon-to-blackout r/PCM don't start flame wars with lemmygrad, all will be okay.
view more: next ›
Even if you often try to make that person feel understood and empowered to express their views, everyone's needs are different. For example, if they tend to feel inadequate or are self-conscious about their achievements/intelligence/etc., you may need to go the extra mile here.
Try to identify all the positive and negative interactions with them (i.e., those in which they get the impression that they are right versus those in which they don't) and make sure that positive ones greatly outnumber negative ones. If you need, you can try to acknowledge more situations wherein their contribution to a conversation deserves praise, or even simply not point out their mistakes if the question at hand is not critical for you (easiest imo).