Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[silverspawn]

By the way, twitter got an edit button, longer tweets (I think you have to pay for them?) and rn I'm seeing a "the author added context they thought people might want to  know". It plausibly did actually get better under Musk!

[faust]

By the way, twitter got an edit button, longer tweets (I think you have to pay for them?) and rn I'm seeing a "the author added context they thought people might want to  know". It plausibly did actually get better under Musk!

Except for all the Nazis of course.

[Awaclus]

By the way, twitter got an edit button, longer tweets (I think you have to pay for them?) and rn I'm seeing a "the author added context they thought people might want to  know". It plausibly did actually get better under Musk!

So, a decent but not entirely unproblematic update locked behind a paywall, a bad update, and a thing Twitter was already doing before Musk bought it.

[silverspawn]

A great update, another great update, and a thing that I didn't know about before!

[silverspawn]

And having stuff behind paywalls is good because it moves the financial model away from advertisements. I think any non-ad income source for twitter is a very good thing in and of itself

[faust]

And having stuff behind paywalls is good because it moves the financial model away from advertisements. I think any non-ad income source for twitter is a very good thing in and of itself

Is it a non-ad source of income? Whoever pays to Twitter has their visibility boosted. That's an ad.

[Awaclus]

A great update

Yay, I love it when I retweet a funny tweet and later it says something racist instead! (There is a feature in place to prevent it from looking like I retweeted the racist thing, but my retweet of the funny thing still gives the racist thing more visibility almost exactly as if I had retweeted the racist thing)

another great update

The character limit is FUCKING GREAT! There have always been ways to bypass it by making a thread or, more recently, writing your post in the alt text of a picture for those times when you actually need to say something longer, but it serves as an incentive to not waste people's time with irrelevant bullShiT. And judging from the vast majority of longer tweets, 90-93% of what's being accomplished by the tweets being longer is literally just that people's time is being wasted with irrelevant bullShiT.

[Awaclus]

Like, the character limit has always been one of the two primary reasons why Twitter is good and Facebook is not, and the other is that Twitter doesn't censor adult content or political opinions and has an exceptionally high threshold for censoring violent or offensive content (as much as conservatives like to pretend otherwise).

[Awaclus]

Also ads are a great business model because you can opt out of them.

[silverspawn]

A great update

Yay, I love it when I retweet a funny tweet and later it says something racist instead! (There is a feature in place to prevent it from looking like I retweeted the racist thing, but my retweet of the funny thing still gives the racist thing more visibility almost exactly as if I had retweeted the racist thing)

another great update

The character limit is FUCKING GREAT! There have always been ways to bypass it by making a thread or, more recently, writing your post in the alt text of a picture for those times when you actually need to say something longer, but it serves as an incentive to not waste people's time with irrelevant bullShiT. And judging from the vast majority of longer tweets, 90-93% of what's being accomplished by the tweets being longer is literally just that people's time is being wasted with irrelevant bullShiT.

my reply to both of these is the same: you're using twitter wrong. If the someone is dishonest and edits the meaning of their posts later, what are you doing retweeting them. Be more selective! If people waste your time with long tweets, what are you doing following them? be more selective!

And having stuff behind paywalls is good because it moves the financial model away from advertisements. I think any non-ad income source for twitter is a very good thing in and of itself

Is it a non-ad source of income? Whoever pays to Twitter has their visibility boosted. That's an ad.

I guess if people using the curated feed, that's true. Never use the curated feed.

[silverspawn]

but yeah if you do, in fact, pay for higher visibility, that may be worse than normal ads.

[Awaclus]

my reply to both of these is the same: you're using twitter wrong. If the someone is dishonest and edits the meaning of their posts later, what are you doing retweeting them. Be more selective! If people waste your time with long tweets, what are you doing following them? be more selective!

I retweet things I think are worthwhile, I don't look into who the person is because that would take time and generally not produce any extra value. I just checked and maybe about half of my retweets from the past few days (I didn't count, but it's probably about right) are from people or organizations I have zero familiarity with.

Of course I don't follow people who regularly write long tweets for no reason, but that doesn't prevent me from seeing tweets that are long for no reason anyway.

And having stuff behind paywalls is good because it moves the financial model away from advertisements. I think any non-ad income source for twitter is a very good thing in and of itself

Is it a non-ad source of income? Whoever pays to Twitter has their visibility boosted. That's an ad.

I guess if people using the curated feed, that's true. Never use the curated feed.
[/quote]

It's also true if people look at replies to tweets, which are always curated, and it is basically confirmed that the "non-curated" feed is also curated to some non-zero extent, it just doesn't add content from people you don't follow (but it does remove content from people you do).

[silverspawn]

I retweet things I think are worthwhile, I don't look into who the person is because that would take time and generally not produce any extra value. I just checked and maybe about half of my retweets from the past few days (I didn't count, but it's probably about right) are from people or organizations I have zero familiarity with.

Fair enough. But I'm still not buying that an edit button is therefore only a mediocre feature. Most technology can be misused, but this is rarely a reason not to deploy it. (Yes I realize the irony of me saying this, but AI is just one such rare case.)

[silverspawn]

It's also true if people look at replies to tweets, which are always curated, and it is basically confirmed that the "non-curated" feed is also curated to some non-zero extent, it just doesn't add content from people you don't follow (but it does remove content from people you do).

yuck! really? Do you have a source?

[Awaclus]

It's also true if people look at replies to tweets, which are always curated, and it is basically confirmed that the "non-curated" feed is also curated to some non-zero extent, it just doesn't add content from people you don't follow (but it does remove content from people you do).

yuck! really? Do you have a source?

Nothing concrete, but a lot of people have reported that some tweets that should be showing up in their Following feeds aren't, and I'm 90-93% sure that has happened for me as well although I couldn't find any example right now. It's not entirely inconceivable that I have just scrolled past those tweets without paying attention to them I guess, but it has happened e.g. with a large number of tweets with alarming content from one of my friends posted at a time when I was actively browsing Twitter (I only noticed them afterwards when checking their profile), which I find somewhat hard to believe I would completely miss if they had been there, and some reports I have heard from others indicate that they have been able to actually confirm it with specific tweets that should have been there and weren't.

[Awaclus]

Fair enough. But I'm still not buying that an edit button is therefore only a mediocre feature. Most technology can be misused, but this is rarely a reason not to deploy it. (Yes I realize the irony of me saying this, but AI is just one such rare case.)

This thread does not have an edit button, Random Stuff IV does, and clearly you prefer to post random stuff in this thread instead of Random Stuff IV. Evidently you don't believe that edit buttons are an important feature.

[silverspawn]

Fair enough. But I'm still not buying that an edit button is therefore only a mediocre feature. Most technology can be misused, but this is rarely a reason not to deploy it. (Yes I realize the irony of me saying this, but AI is just one such rare case.)

This thread does not have an edit button, Random Stuff IV does, and clearly you prefer to post random stuff in this thread instead of Random Stuff IV. Evidently you don't believe that edit buttons are an important feature.

One aspect of X is better than Y. Therefore, X > Y. This definitely checks out.

[silverspawn]

My sister's fiance is also quite fond of this argument.

[Awaclus]

The related, better point is that there's a good reason why the edit button has been disabled in Forum Games. There's a lot of cases where using it to e.g. fix a typo would be absolutely fine, but it is extremely important to preserve the integrity of the discussion e.g. in Mafia and it's just better to not let people fix typos when it opens that whole can of worms. Preserving the integrity of the discussion is not just valuable in Mafia, it's valuable everywhere, so whether or not to introduce an edit button is inherently a choice between that and the ability to fix typos and other small mistakes.

[silverspawn]

Elena (2011)

First off, I have to say it's a little annoying that I now think about what I'll write about the movie while watching it. And that I'll write about thinking about writing about it. And write about thinking ... and so on. Of course you can only think through finitely many levels of meta during the finite time that it takes to watch a movie.

(I thought about that, too.)

Anyway, this movie is very slow. Like incredibly slow. The first half an hour or so is basically just slice of life with no discernible plot. It also opens on like a 1 minute long still shot of a tree, as if to make a point. But it has a plot in the end, and yeah less is more; you don't need to have that complicated of a story as long it feels real, and feeling real it does.

I usually have no clue what a movie is about going in. It was some recommendation connected to YMS, but by the time it finishes downloading, I don't remember what it was at all. Though in this case, at some point it reminded me of Leviathan, and then I realized that it's got to be from the same director. Still haven't confirmed but there's no way it's not. The way the music is used alone is so distinctive. It's this really loud, intense music that's only used sparingly, and it's basically the same every time.

You could summarize both as kind of like an incredibly sober(ing) depiction of what humans do to each other.  Both movies do a phenomenal job in depicting real-feeling humans. Although Leviathan was more specifically about Russian Culture. I definitely enjoyed the second half, and I did watch it in one sitting, so despite being incredibly slow it wasn't that boring. Probably 7/10? A bit weaker than Leviathan.

[Awaclus]

This is why Twitter has a character limit:

https://twitter.com/georgenjoroge_/status/1654743862873554944

[silverspawn]

I can't stop listening to this:

[silverspawn]

You should always remember that everything that's obvious to you is also obvious to other people. That's how life works.

[silverspawn]

Smh it's not showing up. This reminds me:

[silverspawn]

srsly though why is the embed not working?