based

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

… what?

The first language I tried to learn as a kid was Batch scripting…

(edit: and then some VBScript along the way! Eventually worked my way to C++ though)

Wikipedia also releases all content for free download under a permissive license, so I don’t think it’s fair to say that the US government is a meaningful threat to its quality of information

What? How are these two points related at all?

Each instance would ideally have their own standards for neutrality or bias that they see fit. It’s no different from self-hosted wikis except with the federation concept appllied on top of it. I’m sure someone will create an instance that is a straight up clone of wikipedia, another person will create an instance for everything pro-communism / pro-china, someone will create a strictly anti-theism wikipedia, etc.

I don’t see anything wrong or weird about this, the skepticism this project is receiving is stupid. It’s nothing new under the sun.

Either my instance updated recently, or I didn’t notice it at the bottom of the block page. So useful thank you!!! No more lemmynsfw spam!

No shit! So it’s not exactly a counter-point to the concept of a “Wikipedia alternative”

Any self-styled Wikipedia alternative ended up dead, thematic, or biased by design

Being able to block entire instances from your feed, without defederating.

Wikipedia is biased by design though…

Frankly, smart TVs are a stupid product for stupid people. I would never have one in my house, period.

Why is this reply have negative score lol… the answer is simple anyway: stop fucking buying smart TVs!

> Am perfectly fine cutting that behaviour out of my life and my social circle.

This sentence feels so performative and cringey, and yet it still must be said aloud because even my ex-friend to this day defends a similarly shitty guy with a well-documented pattern of abuse.

> Am perfectly fine cutting that behaviour out of my life and my social circle.

This sentence feels so performative and cringey, and yet it still must be said aloud because even my ex-friend still defends a similarly shitty guy with a well-documented pattern of abuse.

Well said.

> Some think it’s a radical approach, but I don’t see it that way. For all its capabilities, the Internet isn’t real and neither are the relationships we have with people on numerous sites that form its social aspect. Thus, there’s really little logic in giving people second chances, wasting time, attention and effort for them, trying to get through their attitudes and suffering to reach “real” them.

You’re absolutely correct.

I think that saying that someone “failed at life” is a bit stupid because, they would do exactly what you recommend in your own comment; they would give friends & family a second chance:

> Regardless of who I cut out though, there is ALWAYS room to come back if they change and grow up.

> I’m still hoping my mom will before she passes… : /

Maybe you see things differently, but perhaps there is something more interesting and constructive you could say than: “You both failed at life.”

Of course, arguing online is pretty fun… haha! :)

They did that in my hometown… :^)

Sure, I agree, but you do realize where the highway went in this picture, right? It’s still there…

Edit: Cease fire! Friendly fire!!! FrieNDLY FIIIIREEEE!!!