You can’t really measure the proportion of players that would buy the game were they not able to pirate it, which makes it easy for CEOs to imagine every incidence of piracy as a lost sale. Who’s going to convince them they put the cart before the horse? It absolves them of direct responsibility for almost any shortcoming possible

Mostly lurked since 2009, but always had an account so I could vote. Started commenting and posting more over time, to the point it was too much, having pointless internet arguments as a substitute for doomscrolling. So when I got the first notification about the API changes in RiF, decided it was time to cut the cord. I’d already mostly come around to the conclusion that I’d been wasting my time there, but I had a notion that it was somehow OK because the place I’d chosen to waste it was somehow different and better in comparison to other social media. It wasn’t that I wanted to get on a boycott bandwagon. But the API decision, the thinly veiled intent of their ridiculous pricing, and their steadfastness in making no subsequent attempt to mitigate the changes whatsoever truly was the tipping point where I could no longer do the mental gymnastics required to con myself into wasting more time there.

They also screwed themselves over by playing the r/place trump card so soon after the last iteration in 2022. Rather than doing it to create a cool event to experience once every few years, they did it to drive engagement on Reddit. That’s made people lose interest and even if it’s another 5 years before the next one, many of them won’t come back. It’s a self-acknowledgement that the peak reddit era is finished and wouldn’t have happened without the prior backlash against their enshittification. It’s the type of thing that sets up the conditions for a death spiral, because they’ve resorted to tricks to get people to use the site and eventually they’ll run out of tricks.

I’m talking about the WHO’s recommendations in their capacity as an advisory body on public health following their analysis of IARC research, not the research itself. Many of the studies do make substantial corrections for the participant candidates. I don’t think that’s necessarily translated through to the recommendations, which should be given in the context of existing public health outcomes.

The WHO agrees that two thirds of adults in countries like USA and Aus are overweight. They agree that obesity is an extreme risk factor for cancer. They agree that non-nutritive sweeteners confer at least a short term benefit to weight loss. They agree that the cancer risk associated with those products is comparatively insignificant. So they should be careful not to potentially mislead media and the the public about that specific causal relationship. It has directly resulted in the misleading headline of this post.

But then couldn’t you just as easily say rather than ‘people use diet products because they’re overweight’, that ‘people are overweight because they use diet products’ ? I’ve certainly heard both propositions before. “Never seen a skinny person drinking Diet Coke”

I didn’t, but I just found a few papers showing a relationship between awareness/use of nutrition claims/labels and obesity.

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-019-7622-3

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306919214001328?via%3Dihub

That second one sums up my logic pretty well:

The analysis revealed that people with excess weight display a high level of interest in nutrition claims, namely, short and immediately recognised messages. Conversely, obese individuals assign less importance to marketing attributes (price, brand, and flavour) compared with normal weight consumers.

Generally people that engage with products marketed as “diet” options are more likely to be people that want to improve their diet. In turn those people are more likely to be overweight. And people that are not overweight are more likely to select based on other product attributes.

Edit: The use of low-calorie sweeteners is associated with self-reported prior intent to lose weight in a representative sample of US adults - https://www.nature.com/articles/nutd20169

In cross-sectional analyses, the expected relation between higher BMI and LCS [low calorie sweetener] use was observed, after adjusting for smoking and sociodemographic variables. The relation was significant for the entire population and separately for men and women (see Table 1). The relation between obesity (BMI ⩾30 kg m−2) and LCS consumption was significant for LCS beverages, tabletop LCS and LCS foods (see Figure 1a). Individuals consuming two or more types of LCSs were more likely to be obese than individuals consuming none (42.7% vs 28.4%) and were more likely to have class III obesity (7.3% vs 4.2%).

Bummer, I think it should be all good now that the initial problems with updating the instance and closing the exploit vulnerability are sorted though.

My assumption isn’t completely absent of context. From the article: “The FDA reviewed the the same evidence as IARC in 2021 and identified significant flaws in the studies, the spokesperson said.”

But that’s not really what I meant. The issue I have is about language and presentation of info, not research methodology. Most people aren’t going to read WHO’s ~100 pages of recommendations on aspartame. We get CNBC’s interpretation, and some clickbaity editor has left their stink on it.

“WHO says soda sweetener aspartame safe, but may cause cancer in extreme doses” is both a more pertinent headline for countries in the west and from what I can tell, closer to being in alignment with what the WHO are actually saying.

Of the basis WHO is using here, most if not all longterm studies (the kind you’d want for assessing things like cancer risk) are based on observational evidence. That is, a study where the participants typically aren’t asked to do anything they don’t already normally do. For this topic, that means generally speaking the participants are going to be people that already normally drink low calorie sweetened beverages.

It doesn’t really seem like they’re accounting for the fact that this means that the participant candidates are going to skew towards people that are overweight, which is like the 2nd highest risk factor for cancer generally.

I can’t really make sense of their recommendation. The data required to recommend for or against just isn’t there. The totality of short term data is all very showing a very strong association between sweetened drinks and weight loss. Wish they’d just explain this stuff properly so we didn’t have to rely on the dumbass media to interpret advice meant for medical professionals

If it’s the same issue as me, you just need to logout/login inside the app. JWT secrets had to be rotated following a recent exploit, and the apps I’m using haven’t accounted for this case. Liftoff still thought I was logged in for example, but as far as the instance was concerned I wasn’t. No issues after I logged out/in manually.

I heard lemm.ee wasn’t vulnerable, so logging users out shouldn’t be necessary. To be vulnerable there would need to be custom emotes defined on the local instance by the admins, so I’m guessing they had none.

Maybe the situation just doesn’t call for use of a triggering word for the same reasons why swear words are less effective when used casually or arbitrarily in many situations. The meaning attached to the swear word is literally derived from the absence of its use in normal daily situations. In turn the use of the word alone is triggering for most that participate in this established convention - that’s the intended design for their use of the word. There’s plenty of forums where exclusively adults talk to eachother without swearing or where a blunt reference to SA would be weird.

When conversation about these topics is warranted, the person tabling it might feel compelled not to trigger other participants and self-censor as a measure towards that outcome. This might not actually prevent victims of SA from being inherently triggered by any discussion on the topic, but it at least signals to them that the organisers of the discussion have considered / are sympathetic to their position, which may encourage their participation in a way that enhances the discussion.

Personally I participate in communities where this topic comes up often and due to the established convention for the mode of discussion in that community, it sounds quite grating to me when someone uses the word rape, because I understand that convention and that it was established for the benefit of others (SA victims), not me.

Just some child begging for attention while the adults are talking by compromising an admin account and posting shock sites. “Lemonparty, haha!” is how I might’ve reacted 20 years ago, these days more just sad how they had this opportunity and couldn’t come up with anything more creative to do than just be generally annoying

I don’t think there’s much keeping users outside that demographic away, more so that the fediverse is a tech solution to the reddit problem, so naturally the people that flock to lemmy are the type of person that looks for tech solutions to the problems they experience in daily life.

My mother just had her illegal IPTV streaming box stop working recently, was her solution to find an alternative? No, she simply stopped watching her shows and did other things instead, and complained about it. And that’s with full denial of service, not just limited/compromised service like reddit users currently experience.

It wasn’t until her tech-savvy nerd son set up another IPTV box for her that she was able to resume consuming the content she wanted to, and similarly lemmy won’t really take off until it reaches a critical mass where enough tech-savvy nerds have shown regular people Lemmy as the tech solution to the problem they’re facing. What’s holding up progress with that at the moment is that the reddit problem for most people isn’t significant enough for a regular person to be in a position to do anything about it, even if they are directly inconvenienced.

Just wait and the problem will resolve itself when proper mod tools are released and beehaw refederates with open instances. In the meantime you can still read and interact with beehaw posts, but only with a separate copy of the post which is only seen by other lemm.ee users. The post you linked to creates a false sense of urgency where unless you can interact fully (i.e. as if beehaw is federated with lemm.ee), then there’s no situation where you should read or interact with those posts at all, or that you can’t interact at all. That’s not really true, as some comments on the post pointed out

I see it in a similar way to how having multiple 3rd-party reddit apps is valid.

If you want to develop a 3rd-party reddit app, the aggregation and structure of the way content is delivered is already determined by reddit. In principle the task is to build a GUI around that.

Fediverse content could be threadiverse-style, or microblogging-style, or both. So to develop an app for this, first you’d need to figure out those aggregation and structure prerequisites. Lemmy, Kbin and Mastodon are like different apps for fediverse content which each take a different approach to this. But since it’s FOSS, there is no 1st / 3rd party, they’re all made by one collaborative project.

If I’m not wrong, generally those that prefer threadiverse style will likely end up migrating to Lemmy or Kbin organically, users that prefer microblogging to Kbin or Mastodon, and users that engage in both might use Kbin for a unified presentation. Or, they might prefer discrete presentations which each specialise in the content type, and use both Lemmy and Mastodon. I understand this is a very loose set of overlapping parameters, but the clarity of purpose here is determined by the individual user’s chosen method(s) of interaction with fediverse content. This is definitely a more abstract notion for a user to think about than simply preferring a given visual style like with a reddit app.

Wherever users lie on the spectrum of use cases might not be clear enough to make generalisations like “lemmy is better than kbin for reddit users” accurately, but I think it’s clear to the users individually either a) the type of things they want to post/see or b) the existing forums e.g. reddit, twitter that they want to replace. So while it’s a more individual purpose, I don’t think it’s lacking in clarity to those individuals.

The culture that exists within the communities that use these pieces of software isn’t determined by the software, it’s determined by the instances and the users. But the different approaches to aggregation/structure might lend themselves better to certain kinds of community in a similarly organic way, which would also contribute to shaping which users are on which platform.

Obesity is like the second biggest risk factor for cancers. This post reads like a non-medical professional’s interpretation of medical advice. I don’t mean to offend, because that is very common. But the information presented here is devoid of context in a way that makes it potentially misleading.

From my quick reading Privacy Act 1988 and GDPR are fairly consistent with eachother, but our legislation is a bit outdated. It seems to be amended every few months, but only in relation to niche clauses that cover very specific circumstances about someone in a particular role and their specific ability to interact with data.

-There is no distinction in Privacy Act between a data processor and a data controller. GDPR regulates individual responsibilities for both.

-In the Privacy Act there’s nothing to stop multiple de-identified datasets from being cross referenced together in a way that could re-identify the data subject.

-The legal basis to protect consumers from collection of personally identifiable data is stronger under GDPR. The only thing an Aus organisation needs to do to collect sensitive data is establish that it’s ‘reasonably necessary’ for their core business operation.

Also note that although GDPR is a European union regulation, many Australian businesses are still beholden to it, e.g. if they knowingly collect information from European customers or have a branch located in EU. You can’t really have an EU branch that’s GDPR-compliant if your parent company overseas isn’t.

Really it’s just drama caused by the platform not maturing yet. Beehaw’s reasons behind defederating from large instances like lemmy.world are valid, but it’s not like other instances made them do it. It’s a choice they made to be able to create the space they want in lieu of proper mod tools. Hope they realise it won’t be an overnight fix, and the longer they stick to their guns the greater the risk of their communities fizzling out, which would be a shame as I agree they are some of the best.

Got my Pixel 7 yesterday and love the stock launcher, but I just can’t stay away from Niagara. It’s just too efficient