Setting aside the financial management of the church, it’s one of the largest organizations in the world which tells people what the purpose of life is. Its members believe the person they’re selecting has authority from God to say what actions are right and wrong.

While I don’t personally believe that, hard not to see it’s a position of significant power and people have an interest in knowing or influencing the outcome.

Can you share what your reasons are for considering a dumb phone?

For me I’m probably not actually going to get one, but have idly thought about it. If I were to get one it would be to free me from the attention sink of web browsing and apps. So I don’t find it appealing to consider a dumb phone that still has web browsing but using some sort of work around.

Man those things used to be everywhere at events

Sure, we’re in agreement as far as that goes. My point was just the commenter above me was indicating it should be common knowledge that Tesla self driving hits motorcycles more than other self driving cars. And whether their comment was about this or some other subject, I think it’s counterproductive to be like “everyone knows that.”

It’s helpful to remember that not everyone has seen the same stories you have. If we want something to change, like regulators not allowing dangerous products, then raising public awareness is important. Expressing surprise that not everyone knows about something can be counterproductive.

Going beyond that, wouldn’t the new information here be the statistics?

What makes a good karaoke song is based on your audience. It should be something you think many of the people in the room would know, and could maybe sing along to. It doesn’t have to be a song they consciously like, just know. Most of the time not too slow. You see too many people getting up and doing something that’s technically impressive but not enjoyable for the audience, like a deep cut from a musical.

Yeah everyone thinks they know a hip hop song until they get to the verses

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to argue centralization is a naturally occurring phenomenon. It’s everywhere. The U.S. left Afghanistan and was replaced by a different centralized entity. One could argue how decentralized those “tribes” were, but regardless, after the U.S. departure they recreated a similar structure.

Complexity comes hand in hand with size. The OP is a chart of the different email providers. Can an individual run their own email server? Yes. And doesn’t it get more difficult after a certain number of users and require hiring specialists? Yes. But still, such large services exist, and a majority of users turn to them.

If the fediverse lives there will always be small servers, but we can expect to see really big ones. If we don’t want them to be corporate recreations of gmail and yahoo and hotmail I’d argue we should figure out a platform co-op/worker co-op model, including the necessary funding and specialists.

My argument isn’t about the fediverse specifically. It’s that centralization is a naturally occurring phenomenon, and the lack of friction resulting from centralization can make it more competitive.

What is the reason the cost per user of hosting a Lemmy server goes up after a few thousand users? If it were say, you need more expensive hardware, that doesn’t necessarily disprove my argument. Just because a bigger investment is needed doesn’t mean it’s not cheaper per user or not more competitive. Just that you or I don’t have the capital, or that we might see centralization bad because we have bad experiences with centralized entities.

Also just because something is more competitive doesn’t mean it’s morally or aesthetically more desirable. The specialized army fed and trained by an empire overruns the brave and happy tribe of hunter gatherers.

What I’m saying is since we know the phenomenon of centralization occurs, we should try to subvert it as much as possible by introducing democratic structures.

We should have large semi-centralized services. But they should be democratically controlled.

Do you ever think about why cities form? Rural life has a lot of appealing characteristics, plus it’s the starting state of the world. Cities form because there is an advantage to size, proximity and specialization. If we had a new planet and completely evenly distributed the population across its land, we’d very quickly form cities regardless.

It’s the same with centralized services. It takes a lot of special knowledge and equipment to run an email service. The average Lemmy user may have those resources, but even here, how many of us run our own email servers?

It costs less per person in resources to add more users after the first one. So there’s an incentive to aggregate users together. And once you have a certain number of users, maybe you figure out some way to fund your operation, and you can pay more people to add features/capabilities. Soon your entity not only has more users, it’s more appealing than a plan vanilla email service, and you get even more users. You’re doing it cheaper and better than the DIYers.

I think centralization and size are naturally occurring. We should think about ways to exist and benefit from them, so something like Gmail but run as a worker cooperative.

If the person can do the work, why the deception? Is this like overemployed on steroids?

Tickets are primarily inbound right? Do you deal much with tasks that are generated by you or your team, rather than coming from somewhere external?

Your symbol system is interesting. When I used to keep written to do lists I just had dots/bullets for each item, and would make a larger square around the items which took priority. What does investigation mean to you in this context?

That’s an interesting philosophy. You haven’t had people annoyed that you didn’t follow up on something they’ve asked about? I guess my memory at least isn’t good enough to track everything I need to do. Or maybe I could remember but feels like more work/risk than having an external system. I also primarily deal with customer facing stuff so maybe I’d feel different than if I was only dealing with coworkers.

Thanks for sharing. Interesting, the idea of a big list and then a “doing today list” lines up with a “time management for dummies” book I found in a drawer at one of my first jobs. For a while I was using that system but written by hand.

I’m from the states and when I lived in a rural area there was a pancake house that was all you can eat. I didn’t finish all of the first serving, I can’t imagine needing seconds or thirds.

I don’t think this is entirely accurate. I understand what you’re saying, that a determined person can relatively easily bypass this hurdle and view the content.

Still, I can see value in creating a hurdle. It’s not unsurpassable, but it requires energy to pass it. And sometimes that’s enough to not be the low hanging fruit. Maybe the poster wants to avoid trolls, or they don’t want that particular content to be easily scraped.

I have a friend who works for an independently wealthy minor noble. The guy is getting his masters as an adult and has four people “helping” him. My friend had to fly to another city because the noble’s son was moving there, and they needed my friend to set up the cable and assemble furniture before the son got there.

Interesting thoughts, thanks for sharing.

On the subject of drift from “ideal” belief systems to corrupt ones, I would argue that what we’re seeing is actually evolutionary pressure.

If we think of ideas as living things, and we place them in an ecosystem of other ideas, they inevitably have to adapt to keep reproducing. (Spreading to another person’s mind)

So generally they have to be the sort of idea one would feel compelled to transmit, and then be transmittable. They have to be understood, received.

I think many people have received a transmission of ideas that is very different from the one that was sent. And then the various pressures of life transform those ideas more.

That can be bad as we’ve seen in cases of Christianity, Marxism and more. It can also be good, because then the belief system becomes sustainable. I’m thinking of certain religions which were batshit when they started, but in order to live on they moderated. Not that they’re entirely reasonable now, but they’re able to live on and wouldn’t have in their original form.

Why is this guy being such a weenie?