Reading a chart and understanding it are different things, a further different thing is understanding what it means in context.

This is a good book for learning the ins and outs of how to understanding statistical data in general.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lie_with_Statistics

It does come at it through the lens of intentionally deceptive practices but It’s a good general introduction as well.

@mods The rest of this chain was offensive, but this comment consisting solely of a personal attack is not ?

Removed by mod

That is my matrix username

Ah, makes sense.

I respond to a someone probably exploring communism asking about a term with an emphasis on the deleting of certain posts spreading misinformation, which might miss guide the person asking the question into some kind of vaushist “leftism” or turn them off from exploring marxism. The specific posts spreading misinformation are claiming a very accusatory claim used by western imperialists to make a government look bad, which in a less fortunate country that is just developing, could be the result of support for a coup to put in a puppet government. Whether you support that claim which is objectively false (https://tankie.tube/w/p/kFZ2joQah4kmt2KSpzPHtb?playlistPosition=6&resume=true <-- is an entertaining starter with sources) is irrelevant when people think these people spreading such disinformation are some kind of heroes.

That also makes sense, mostly, i disagree with some of it on a logical principle level, but i really don’t have a personal horse in any of the political parts i also don’t know/care enough to get one.

All the things you said might be true, they all might be false, though i suspect they’re all subjective enough to be context dependent, i also suspect we aren’t going to agree on the difference between subjective and objective, which is my main disagreement with the statement as a whole.

My main point was, there were answers that are now deleted, that is provably true.

The subjective accuracy of those answers isn’t really the point and no claim was made on that aspect.

Also, the implied /s for “mysterious” didn’t land and that’s on me.

Removed by mod

@Williama:Genzedong

I’m not sure what this means, is this a reference i’m supposed to know?

Come on lib send me the Tiananmen Square video of tanks doing the things you claim they do. @Williama:Genzedong

Not sure if this is aimed at me, but i haven’t claimed anything to do with tanks, at any point, ever.

Some answers haven’t “disappeared for mysterious reasons”,

That’s fair , i meant “mysterious reasons” in a less factual and more sarcasm way, but i can see how that might have not come across.

it’s for spreading misinformation.

That’s subjective, which is what that whole thread is about no?

I wasn’t really emphasizing the subjectivity of the claims, as much as just pointing out that answers had been removed and they might be found in the modlog.

You seem to have a strong opinion on this, i do not.

If you disagree then come on, send me a video of the “horrendous crimes committed by China in Tiananmen Square”

I’m sure you can search for whatever videos you need, i haven’t made any claims i would need to provide video evidence for.

I won’t be providing evidence of positions i haven’t taken or claims i haven’t made, that would be silly.

I fully consent. @Williama:Genzedong.

Still not sure what this reference is.

Surely at least one of the “victims of the massacre” would have recorded something the “ruthless military regime” and their oh so very “despicable acts of massacre”.

See the above section about there being no claims or positions taken.

If you want to imagine i’ve sent you proof of this imaginary claim i’ve made so you can be upset in your imagination , feel free.

If you and other libs are annoyed that the devs are “tankies”, then go back to reddit.

See above re: claims that never happened

edit: damn, that’s a high percentage of sodium for pointing at a thing that provably exists in the modlog.

worth checking the modlog, seems there were answers that have since disappeared for mysterious reasons.

Great argument there. Replace what I say with whatever you think it says and go on from there.

I mean, yes… that is what i did… i explained as i did it.

Should I just do the same with yours and we’ll see what kind of nonsense comes out? I’m sure that would be in your interpretation of “good faith”.

Was this a preface to actually doing this? is there a part of the text missing ?

TL;DR;

It’s weird to be upset at people for having personal boundaries/morals/ethics.

Using “purity test” like a pejorative, because using a more accurate term makes your argument sound bad, is a bad faith approach.

You say “purity tests” like it’s some sovcit term imbued with magical powers, like DEI or woke.

Headcanon replace it with “personal ethics and morals” and you might see how some of those arguments are really just people having boundaries.

An example of what i mean.

This is the biggest issue with niche communities: purity tests.

They can’t unite under one goal and have productive discussions. They are more focused on being correct (their interpretation of correct) and shutting out the incorrect than getting closer to a goal. Sometimes incorrect can be as little as choosing the wrong utility and other times it can be much bigger but they all spark the same amount of ire.

vs

This is the biggest issue with niche communities: personal ethics and morals.

They can’t unite under one goal and have productive discussions. They are more focused on being correct (their interpretation of correct) and shutting out the incorrect than getting closer to a goal. Sometimes incorrect can be as little as choosing the wrong utility and other times it can be much bigger but they all spark the same amount of ire.

See how the rest of that statement sounds without the bad faith, magic-word interpretation ?

I’m not expecting any good faith arguments in response, so don’t worry, this was a just-in-case kind of thing.

Is that relevant somehow?

Is this situation relevant to that example? Are the people in question changed since the time in which the accusations were made?

Rebranding personal ethics and morals as “a purity test” is disingenuous at best.

If you’re going to take umbridge with someone’s approach at least do it directly instead of this backhanded high horse bullshit.

They aren’t mutually exclusive concepts, both can be true.

The point was that guarding ideas didn’t start with formalised copyright.

Sure, but that’s not the only way people have guarded ideas.

Secret societies, artisan guilds that only taught it’s members and on occasion killed people who find out their secrets, professions taught only to the direct student.

Just because the formal idea of something was recorded doesn’t mean it wasnt around before.

As people we are constantly hoarding knowledge and ideas to benefit is individually or as a tribe.

What do you mean by “most of our history” , like in a timeframe sense ?

So you would say the level of skill, study and practice for genai art is approximately the same as a non-ai artist?

Because that was the statement you disagree with.

For now : https://consumerrights.wiki/w/Brother_printers_causing_issues_with_third_party_inks

I have one also so I’m invested in how this plays out.

no worries

That sounds reasonable and is significantly more than i previously knew about the subject.

If there are no effective mechanisms for reigning in that obstruction wouldn’t that be a form of control, even if only over a single aspect/issue.

Like if someone is obstructing the only exit door and i have no viable means of rectifying that situation they effective control over my ability to exit and anything that would follow on from that.

Looking at my reply i can see how it sounded.

I wasn’t actually saying you were incorrect , i was saying the way you presented it was shaky.

The reply you just gave makes sense.

“it can’t be controlled by one nation because some nations are complaining” does not.