beehaw is only one instance, and I’d love to keep it an instance that I know is full of actual people.

That’s an insightful way of putting it that didn’t come to mind.

I think part of what Beehaw uniquely offers is the drive for its own kind of instance and user culture and a closer and more organic community. Bots, save for moderator tools, admittedly detract from that kind of vibe. I could imagine that sacrificing less necessary bots, either partially or entirely, could be an important measure toward securing those aforementioned values. Federation with more Reddit-esque instances still allows us to scratch Reddit sort of itch when it comes up.

I don’t think I have a strong opinion toward bots. They could get gimmicky and unnecessary, but I never felt like they detracted from my experience to a noteworthy degree. I don’t think I ever disliked bots too much on Reddit? But then again, I rarely liked or wanted bots, either. I have a loose leaning toward letting people reasonably experiment with how they interact with a platform online, but “bots” as in the kind of stuff I remember from Reddit seem like a relatively weak expression of that. If I had to put an opinion down, I’d say that I’m in favor of their continued presence with the caveat of some guidelines and defined best-practices. Otherwise, if I wake up one day to learn that bots are banned on Beehaw, admittedly I wouldn’t be all that bummed about it.

th3raid0r and Lionir seem to get pretty well at the kind of recommendations I’d like to see. Bots ideally should provide a meaningful contribution to communities. Bots should be clearly labelled and identifiable as such. Bot creators should have consent from the community’s moderators to have a bot interact within the community. The Cardinal Be^e Nice applies here, perhaps to a greater degree: bots shouldn’t be used to fake engagement, impersonate people, commit technical attacks on the community, etc.

the_itsb also reminded me of another aspect: we may want to consider how active and populated a community is. Bots take up the attention and visual space of everyone else browsing a community and its discussions. It strikes me as a worst-case scenario, but I could imagine it’s possible for a bot overabundance to choke out legitimate conversation. That’s enough for me to start thinking twice about whether or not I have a loose stance on this.

I worry that most Lemmy instances are too young/inactive for this kind of bot yet. I don’t think we’re past the tipping point where the people commenting will automatically outweigh the bots, and I don’t think those bots are fun unless they’re dramatically outweighed by normal human interaction.

That’s an interesting way of putting it that I didn’t immediately consider.

I don’t necessarily like them, but I’m not really all that against them, either. If we don’t have the activity to balance out bot input, however, it might be reasonable to limit them one way or another. It seems to me like a worst-case scenario, but if a community or thread has what feels like a noticeable amount of bots, that would be a turn-off for me.

If the community decides to limit bot traffic either partially or entirely, it might be good to revisit that decision later on if there’s an upward trend in users and activity.

Do spoiler foldouts maintain their functionality across UIs, either directly or in essence (eg. popup instead)?

Part of me wishes that Lemmy also had spoilers that reveal in place, but foldout spoilers have some functionality that makes me appreciate having both on hand. I’d bet bots could benefit from using that to minimize visual space if we go through with it.

Almost makes me think that we have a fighting chance to make tags on Lemmy work. Part of me would want to see tags get some unique formatting like post flairs, but even just inline tags would be a leg-up.

Or maybe both in-line and post tags. Neat stuff to daydream 🤔.

Goin’ aight. It was fun last week, but pretty busy for a summer week for me too. I had a friend over while they were in town for the summer, got to see Les Mis while there was a performance in SF, and was unexpectedly enlisted to help another friend practice for their driving test. All a great time, but maybe I’ll get some more time this week to tend to some personal hobbies and projects.

Absolutely cute critter you have in your yard there. Looks like the little dude has a delightful kingdom to roam around in 👑.

I love Tech Connections. Unnecessarily long deep dives, but that’s the kind of content I absolutely appreciate. His stuff is a treat that helps to highlight the rabbit holes that can be found in the mundane.

I don’t know about a rifle, but there was at least one video of his recently where he draws a pistol to help drive a point home. Maybe it’s only because I’m from California, but even as an American that bit was jarring. I said it elsewhere in a comment for this post, but in sum I know to give his work a skeptical lens before I decide to take it in.

Ironically his videos ultimately helped me to become less paranoid about government and corporate data collection. His work help shows that no countermeasures taken will be absolutely bulletproof in protecting from data collection, and that the kind of work and changes needed to get somewhere closer to absolute feels like a mountain. Personally I have my respect for people with the resolve to see that through, but for the kind of experiences and tech I want in my life, there’s no way I could get close to that kind of dedication to privacy.

if im gon be blumbling around online at 2am im taking you all with me 😈

I certainly wouldn’t have an informed idea on how that could be handled, either. What I have to offer toward particulars amounts to spit balling 🤷‍♂️.

If I had to guess though, I’d bet you and @patchymoose@rammy.site are getting at it. A UN treaty could play a part in establishing a baseline to build up on. Perhaps the key could be to indirectly govern it rather than trying to directly govern happenings in international waters? Operations that depart from signing countries could guarantee that their vessels meet basic standards, even if those offshore operations are ultimately conducted in international waters.

I’d imagine that it may shift a noteworthy amount of operation departures to non-signing countries, but I’d also think that increasing the barrier of entry and making such standards highly visible would make a noteworthy difference regardless.

I forgot to mention in my earlier reply that this was a reminder that also helped change my perspective. Putting your own life in danger unfortunate, but ultimately your own decision. Making a negligent decision that affects a wider industry is unfortunate, but seems like a risk in business in general.

Willful negligence that costs the lives of others demands consideration for how things can be done differently. The first best time to have defined and enforced those standards would’ve been before we lost these lives. The second best time to do so is now.

Did paying customers fully understand the risks, though?

You know what, that’s a good question and getting to a perspective I somehow found hard to explore on my own 🤔.

Generally I’m quite strongly in favor of regulations precisely because of this kind of question. The lay customers likely didn’t fully understand the risk they were taking—fully and throughly understand as an expert would. Achieving that kind of understanding takes expertise in a field, and expertise takes years, if not a lifetime to build. I don’t it’s reasonable to expect everyone to have an expert and informed opinion on everything, so I think a society ought to have the responsibility of establishing regulation to protect people from that kind of valid and inevitable ignorance. Sure, the five on board were billed as brave adventurers, but can I confidently say they were informed? Save for the negligent CEO, I’m not so sure I can.

-

I think my hesitation to extend that mindset to this is because the idea of underwater tourism, let alone deep sea tourism felt like uncharted territory to me. Not “against” mind you, more “hesitant.” I think we ought to make progress safely and responsibly, especially if we’re doing so with lay people tagging along, but part of me worries that putting up too many guard rails and too much red tape can stymy legitimate, good faith progress. A regrettable part of regulations is that a fair amount of them are written in blood. Sacrifice, in a way, is sometimes necessary to know just where those guard rails ought to be.

But I’m starting to realize that this is likely not as uncharted as I thought. I can’t believe it didn’t occur to me on my first impressions, but of course we have the potential to make informed safety decisions here—submarines have been around a hot minute, we have the precedent to build an informed understanding of what’s safe and what isn’t. It’s starting to settle more in now, too, that we have more expert individuals and groups in this area than I thought that can help define informed standards.

-

For the sake of those that were on board and their families, I still hope that this was indeed a risk that at least some of them legitimately wanted to take. I wouldn’t be surprised, however, if you’re right in that most of them didn’t fully grasp the risk they were taking.

As for my stance on how this should be approached going forward, I dunno if it was your intention or just a side question, but I suppose I can say I changed my mind! I think we’re at a point where we can make informed decisions on how to regulate this, and we ought to do so sooner rather than later 🤝.

I still can’t get over how janky that tin can felt to me when I was looking into it. Not even getting into the safety cuts, the whole picture felt cheap. The Poop-Bucket a foot away and audibly masked with turning up the music; five people sitting cross-cross applesauce on basically an exercise mat in cramped real estate; working with two desktop monitors and a Logitech controller; the CEO explicitly bragging about cutting corners and breaking rules.

I think that even if the sub more closely resembled expectations and even if the CEO was on top of safety, the story would’ve still been a quick sell on mass media. A sub exploring the Titanic going missing invokes the kind of visuals and what-ifs that start to depart reality and arrive to movie territory. Add the schadenfreude to it and the minivan as described above and that movie becomes a sort of dark humor comedy blended with horror.

I think that this story makes for a good sideshow to gawk at. It’s also a good vehicle to laugh at the rich. The shipwreck in the Mediterranean, as much as it demands our attention in contrast, is much more grounded in reality—hard and painful realities—that I think a sizable chunk of society gets squeamish about. It demands we answer questions and take actions that certain someones would rather we don’t.

I’d say you’re right about all you said. It’s a shame and a bad look on our society that’s how it works out more often than not. I’d like to try and do my small part to leave things a bit better than how I found them, whether that’s in cultural values or in political action. But as you alluded to about the United States: that is much easier said than done.

You sound like you have a vital and focused framing to what I said, and admittedly more relevant to, well, This. I’m inclined to extend the sum of my takeaway to a broader scope, however. To try and extend generosity when we are in the circumstances to do so, in both large and small incidents and in large and small ways. It’s the kind of reminder that personally comes to mind whenever I hear about these kinds of rescue efforts.

It’s also admittedly getting outside of what this incident was and starting to get into more trivial manners, but I seem to get inclined to try and find something positive and/or productive to get from tragedy. Lamenting about the likes of capitalism and the US has definitely been a crucible that helped shaped my perspective for the better, but as crucibles go, it drains and exhausts me.

-

All that said, I can’t deny what you said. It’s the state of affairs, and it’s a sorry one. Let’s see what we can do within our means to help change that 🤝.

I ought to concede I have plenty of disappointment around this. I feel like there were well established means to do this kind of thing safely, and I think because Seagate failed to meet that, five lives were needlessly lost. I wouldn’t be surprised if this story lives on for a while as a sort of fable in hubris. That’s not even getting to, say, the sense of injustice invoked in comparing how this was handled to the recent shipwreck in the Mediterranean. I think all of those thoughts distill down to the Eat The Rich flavored fan faire, and I think there’s already plenty of that here.

Still, the Rich and Foolish nature of this trip all said, I find it commendable that the likes of the US Coast Guard, the Navy, and international groups came together and put up a sizeable and respectable search and rescue effort. I think it would’ve been well in their right (and in fact realistic) for them to wave it off and say something like “they made the wine, they drink the cup.” But they didn’t. I can respect that the collective weight of the wallets on board likely played a big part in it to say the least, but I’d also wager that it also takes a mighty large amount of forgiveness in people being foolish to go through that kind of effort to try and save them. Similar can probably be said for rescue missions helping out others in equally foolish incidents.

There’s a lot directly and indirectly connected to this disaster that doesn’t reflect well on the bulk of society, but the effort to try and help others even if they don’t necessarily deserve it? I’ll admit it feels naive to say, but I’d rather live in that kind of society than one that errs toward extending a callous hand. I hope we’ll hear more often about us extending a hand to those who indeed deserve it, like those in the Mediterranean, but I’m also in the camp of continuing to extend that kind of forgiveness to The Foolish we’ll continue to stumble upon. I hope to have the will to do that, at least.

We’re all going to be foolish from time to time in life, and I sure know I’d sincerely appreciate a kind hand when it’s my turn.

I’m inclined to characterize this loss as reckless and needless, but I find myself agreeing with likewise here. Some opportunities are the once-or-so in a lifetime sort. There’s likely such opportunities out there that I’d love to take if I had the means, even if the risks were great.

I can completely understand people wishing ill on those lost here. As I said, I think there’s an element of hubris and needlessness in this disaster that makes it upsetting, and that doesn’t even get to the likes of the discrepancy in coverage between this incident and the greater loss near Greece this week.

Still, I suppose I hope this risk was worth it to at least a few of the souls on board.

-

The people going down would have known the risks and accepted them for an opportunity for a once in a lifetime opportunity to go to the titanic.

I have to admit that a game controller, at least the ergonomics and controls of one, likely makes more sense than it would seem at first blush.

I think it’s more a problem with circumstances and optics. If all was well and this whole fiasco didn’t happen, I could see it being framed as a sort of goofy trivia piece, just like the US Navy’s use. But when things go wrong as they did here, it feels like the kind of bit that’s incredibly easy to reach and dunk on.

I’m not inclined to hinge my disappointment on the game controller, but I can’t blame anyone for doing that, either.

When I first starting shifting away from Reddit, I was nervous about whether I’d like having smaller communities. I’m definitely adapting more to it myself.

I remember coming to a similar realization with Discord servers. I started out with joining servers between friends and I figured that maybe I was missing out by not getting into some larger ones. I actively tried getting into a couple of servers that weren’t even all that big compared to some numbers I’ve heard before—the servers I’d try to get into were like, 3,000+ users typically?

The conversations always felt way too fast for me to get a word in, and it never felt like I had many chances to start conversations unless it was like 2am and most of the serve was asleep. Voice chat feels like I can’t even get my foot in the door. Server rules and policies paradoxically felt convoluted as well as nebulous. I make a solid attempt at integrating into the culture wherever I go, but I could never seem to do those servers right. I still stick around some of those servers now, but only because they play meaningful roles in communities I’m in.

-

It feels radical to say, because I’m so used to equating Big Numbers and Lots of Content to being a healthy community, but maybe there really isn’t too much wrong with a smaller or slower community? That’s not to knock anyone who’d prefer the contrary, but I’m starting to realize that me personally, it’s those smaller places that I really enjoy, and that maybe I don’t give them enough credit. It takes more time for fresh content and talk to come in, but when it does, it feels meaningful and like I actually have a chance to be that someone who starts it in the first place. The moderation and culture feels much more in touch with the community there.

I hope Beehaw succeeds in whatever the community and its leadership wants it to be, but I hope that it holds on to its integrity and the philosophy it’s communicated so far, even if that means it leans toward a smaller feel. I think I kinda like that feel to it.