@danirabbit “I can’t believe they would steal, and then destroy that poor guy’s ring! And kill all of his employees he sent to get it back from them!”

@obot50549535 @jmax @Natasha_Jay Exactly right. They (and many cats) also use their tails to maintain stability when turning aggressively. It’s particularly visible in videos of cheetahs chasing prey.

@ckd @beandev @zalasur @DXMacGuffin @cmconseils RFC 3339 is better, because it’s free to read.

https://infosec.exchange/@bob_zim/116462459762447073

@brass75 @bitbraindev @matty @alice For example, if he had started with the fifty most popular tags across each of the ten most populous servers, that would have shown people what it does with posts which are already practically guaranteed to propagate. Limited utility, but also very limited potential negative impact. Selecting what tags get included in something like that is what people mean when they talk about The Algorithm, though: somebody else deciding what gets promoted and what doesn’t.

Doing it for all tags is arguably the least Algorithm way. Treat everything equally. But people use tags in ways he didn’t expect or understand, thence harm.

@brass75 @bitbraindev @matty @alice When someone asks for the posts with a particular tag, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for them to expect to get the posts with that tag on them. While *an* algorithm, that’s the opposite of what people mean when they say “The Algorithm”.

The way tags work is deeply non-obvious to new users. These are exactly the people who initially rely on tools like tags to help them find new people to follow.

Creating an account for a tag and having that account boost posts with the tag is a naïve workaround, but clearly not a good one. Should have been discussed more broadly to learn of objections first.

@mrundkvist Empirically disproven by basic mathematics. And this isn’t like “Male/female is basic biology!” which is expanded later. Profit doesn’t get more subtle than “surplus value”. There are things to be learned from private industry, but efficiency definitely isn’t one of them.

People who believe privatizing government services can improve the service are economically illiterate. And sure, tons of people are economically illiterate.

Reminds me of how many businesses went “Moving to AWS will save us so much money!”, then they were shocked their ongoing bills were 20x as high. Like they thought *Amazon*—one of the biggest storefronts in history—is a charity.

@mrundkvist Sure, I know the arguments, but they have never made the least bit of sense. Profit is surplus value. That’s literally the first lesson of market economics. We teach it to children in school. If you don’t extract that value, price goes down or output goes up. Holding output constant, extracting profit, and saving money is transparently impossible.

@mrundkvist Profit-based companies inherently *can’t be* more efficient. They need to extract some profit, after all, and that money has to come from somewhere! Either price goes up, output goes down, or both. There is no fourth option.