Works great for db:seed, too
Works great for db:seed, too
If you’re in RoR land, there’s always the Faker gem to get you started. Or keep it simple - find lists of names on Wikipedia or something, shuffle and combine.
Questionable! There was the whole thing when Jessica Walter spoke out about Jeffery Tambor that was very disappointing.
This thread is really alarming if you’re like me and got Patrick Bateman confused with Jason Bateman
Seconded. I’m a dude in my mid 30s and I love those movies
I hate that thing
I call this my “rule of three” - I wait until I’ve seen “something” three times before deciding on an abstraction. Two isn’t enough to get an idea of all the potential angles, and if you don’t touch it a third time, it’s probably not important enough to warrant the effort and risk of a refactor
proportional
Maybe they just don’t have the actual numbers you’d expect from their outsized presence in the discourse, when they’re not being protected, or facilitated, or actively promoted by engagement algorithms or the individuals who own the other platforms.
(I’m pretty sure this is the case, but I’m too lazy to get sources just this minute)
Yes!
some specific instance should have its own “charter” that it uses to make those decisions with, sure whatever
This one, yes.
I’d happily take a sliding scale subscription that comes with zero personal benefits, if it means keeping a cool and valuable instance up and running.
Oh hey, like taxes.
It is actually exciting to see and participate in how things develop.
Same, to go from years of lurking on Reddit to feeling compelled to post here is an indication to me that something cool and different is trying to happen.
Good question, something for folks writing the charter (whoever they might be) to take into consideration, and hash out.
Off the top of my head, there are types of for-profit orgs, like B Corps, that could be included. There are non-profit orgs, like religious institutions, that could be excluded.
(Edit: point is that it’s something for more and better minds to sort out, and adjust over time)
I’m very anti one charter - my intention here is to propose the idea of charters as a way for communities to sort of balance each other out, solve each other’s problems and avoid reinventing each other’s wheels.
Well-thought-out policies will be copied and forked by other new instances, and that will create consensus communities of instances that are at least on the same page when it comes to how a site is supposed to work.
Yeah, pretty much this, but with some mechanism - literally at an icon level - to indicate to users (lemmings, lemurs, lemurians?), who aren’t necessarily keyed into inter-instance politics, and just want to see their memes, that “this instance follows the No-Nazis charter, which I like, and the rest of the charter members agree. Cool.”
True, I specifically called out the Lemmyverse, versus the Fediverse, however. In this moment, the Lemmyverse feels like a crucible of “now what?” where there’s room for something like this.
To clarify, in my head, I couldn’t, nor wouldn’t imagine all Lemmy instances to adopt a single charter, but to have the concept floating around in the space - take it or leave it.
[disclaimer: I don’t know how to talk about this stuff without sounding like a Pollyanna, but I’m actually a “hope for the best prepare for the worst” sort of cynic]
You could have one charter developed by a group of instances that are committed to being inclusive, diverse spaces.
I’m thinking about this like a Syndicalist/Confederalist - administrative organizations (interest groups) form as necessary, and dissolve when their function has run its course.
Frankly, I’d kill for the Dems to pour money and resources into down ballot races.