Pika

“all I want for Christmas is you…”

Well that’s enough lemmy for today

Especially considering that having a functional stove nowadays skyrockets your insurance. A lot of people used to use wood stoves as the backup heat source if the power went out, we still have one ourselves however it’s “non-functional” , it probably is to be honest it hasn’t been ran for a few years now but it was going to Skyrocket the insurance if we had it listed as a functional Appliance

The proper way of doing it is using what’s called a generator bypass switch, basically it’s a physical switch that runs before your fuse box, and it makes it impossible to have both the main and the generator being fed at the same time, so you can either have the main on or you could have the generator on. This prevents the electricity from your generator back feeding into the line and killing a line worker trying to restore power.

Sadly, like the other comments have said people tend to use these male to male cables in order to not have to pay the $2,000 to install the switch and instead choose to just turn the main breaker off and plug that cable in. But since it’s possible to have both the main and the generator on it’s not legal because if you forgot to throw the Main or if you did it incorrectly you could be putting workers at risk

Even disregarding the safety risk of using such a cable, not having a dedicated switch installed also means that you’re plugging your generator into usually an outside socket of the house, and those power lines aren’t usually meant to have a high load so you risk creating a fire from over straining the line as well

We call them a Deadman’s cable up here, and sadly they’re still quite frequently used in the northern rural areas because it costs almost $2,000 to have a dedicated bypass switch installed(generator hookup) so nobody does it, they just throw the Main and hope they don’t put too much stress on the internal lines.

Is it legal? Hell no but they do it anyway

If you really don’t want to explain why you are down-voting, I really don’t think people should be down-voting.

there are many times that you can down-vote without a requirement of explaining. Sometimes your point has already been made by another person, other times it’s just a really bad take or the person is so dead-set that honestly you couldn’t change the persons mind even if you explained it. Sometimes the comment is just hostile to the current situation or the OP, sometimes the comment is just super off-topic. Some situations allow for down-votes without explaining it.

I personally down-vote for off-topic and harassing posts as it helps the system sort what is considered helpful to the discussion. I would refuse to down-vote for harassing and off-topic if this system is in place, as it creates an attack vector for the person to come after me, a situation that would require either blocking them or bugging a mod for, which is something that personally I just don’t want to deal with in my life so I would simply just not participate in the vote.

Not sure where you are pulling the “new users get filtered out as untrustworthy”,

The type of system proposed inherently causes it as a side effect. When you have a system that is crowdsourced from the popular opinion, you create an echo chamber that only shows content from sources that have been deemed as appropriate, as such not only do you lose the arguing side, you also lose content from people who are not established/just starting out as they are not profiled as that side. as for examples? Two examples of sites that use that style system include Stackoverflow, which uses a rep system to decide how much access you can get into, and some of the larger reddit sites which went off the karma system to even allow posting in them. There are also other examples in reddit, but the karma block system was the most predominant (followed by sub rule filters which filtered out based off bias).

I do believe that a karma system is best type of system however I believe that the metric should be hidden from sight. This will allow for helpful comments to rise to the top, but will remove the hard focus “score” ideology that everyone has. In this system you wouldn’t know if you were down-voted in the first place, which means you wouldn’t be aware of someone maliciously down-voting you, and it would also do what you want where it would force someone if they had a super big issue with what was posted to actually comment on it. That being said, this system can not exist in a federated environment so therefore the next best thing is either anonymous (to all but mods/admins due to moderation and federation control reasons) or just not having the system as a whole.

the world is an interesting place, the very reasons you gave “for” it is why I was against it. I don’t agree that it won’t cause witch hunts, and from the POV of the commentor it might be nice, but from the POV of the person who is giving the vote, it’s a severe downgrade.

Especially considering the fact that if the person downvoted but didn’t leave a comment afterward they likely would not have downvoted in the first place if it wasn’t anonymous because they don’t want to have to deal with the social interaction of someone trying to push them to explain further. Not everything needs a detailed this is why I feel this way, that’s why there is a upvo and down vote system in the first place, to prevent everyone from leaving a comment of I agree with this / I disagree with this / this is on topic / this is off topic

In addition to this, to say that no one’s giving reasons of why voting should be private, I don’t think that’s a truthful statement there are plenty of reasons that people have provided via privacy, security and sometimes just mental state.

You mentioned that you want to have a system where you choose what people you see and the people you don’t agree with don’t appear., I think that type of environment is extremely unhealthy for a social media platform. It’s why other platforms that have curated that content is starting to become a cesspool. I really don’t want to see lemmy become one big Echo chamber, it’s not healthy to have only one ideology that you see at all times and let’s face it that’s what that system you’re proposing would introduce.

Additionally the system your proposing is going to run into the same issue as the other websites that have attempted to do, this sort of system leads to new people inadvertently getting filtered out as untrustworthy, which will mean that they’re not getting activity on their posts/ comments as well which means that they’re just going to move on to another platform.

Honestly, I think I would rather just have the score system be removed as a whole then see that type of system implemented

they could do similar to another platform had done, which is tie voting to a shadow account that only the instance admin team can link to a user, this allows for moderation while providing the ability for obscurity.

I still disagree it should be public in the first place, but I know it’s a hard requirement for federation so it’s unlikely to become more concealed

I can agree with that, I myself am guilty of blocking people who are hostile with their ideologies, I do believe that would be handy. But I know there is definitely people who are just going to block every person that has to do with their ideology, and giving them the ability to see the downvotes see who disagrees with their ideology I don’t think it is healthy/should be promoted

They aren’t, however that doesn’t mean that because one exists the other should do the same.

My instance while it has the ability to see scores I keep them turned off, I find the score system as a whole to be counterproductive to a healthy environment as it encourages an echo chamber effect. an effect that by making every vote public to the standard person will just become worse as now the people who were voicing their opinion via the downvote/upvote system, will think twice about voicing in the first place. It also removes the people who are non-combative/confrontational from giving an opinion as it links a name to the score. There’s tons of people that would like to give their opinion about things, but don’t want it to be able to be looked up easily, and don’t want to be confronted about that opinion.

If conversations were healthy and always on topic I would fully agree with a public info voting system, but, there is no system in place to prevent someone from getting super pissed off that you downvoted their comment that’s about how they love the color red when the conversation at hand is to do with the financial stability of McDonald’s so they decide to just Branch out and nuclear downvote every other comment you have, or decide to try to harass you in your other comments. Yes you can block them and you can get the instance team involved but that can only go so far especially if the problamic user is part of a different instance, and like you said moderation is already strained so there’s no point in giving even more work to them

The better solution in my opinion, is just keep the barrier in place, and honestly if it had the ability to I would say restrict down what the API provides regarding scores even further, but I’m fairly certain that the way it is due to the need of being able to Federate.

This is actually something I have not thought of, the only issue is that people are going to use it as a I like this instead of this is high quality, which I think is the biggest hindrance of that. This is also going to be nearly impossible to moderate on a federation level because an instance could be spun up that would lie about the reputation of an account and everyone would just go to that instance due to the fact that it doesn’t have that restriction

I mean this is a benefit, I’m just worried that this is going to create a echo chamber, Facebook has the same issue where people just hide post that they don’t agree with which basically makes it so the only content they see is content they agree with and it’s never positive to have only one side of an argument. That’s a big reason of why the US politics system is failing(sorry it’s just the biggest example I can think of) it’s too segregated between the two major parties so nothing can ever get done

I fully agree with this in the terms of removing stuff that doesn’t have to do with the conversation or topic, but I don’t agree on filtering People based off opinion, which is what I’m worried this would cause

So the API does disclose who upvotes and downvotes, however since the major front ends themselves don’t show to everyday users, it’s walled off to finding a frontend that is able to view them and to mod/admins of the instance.

Currently it takes someone to be somewhat savvy to be able to do that, this proposal is making everything public period, which would remove that wall

I partially agree with you, the voting system as a whole should be removed in my opinion or upvotes publicized but down vote should not. It’s far too easy for down vote which is used commonly as in off topic or disagree to be taken the wrong way and cause targeted harassment. Making the whole thing public as a whole is just going to make dissants refuse to give their opinion strengthening echo chamber issues

I don’t even run with votes enabled(I can vote but can’t see scores) on my clients, but like yeah this will definitely make me second guess any type of interaction with voting for both directions because I don’t want to become a target for harassment. It defeats the purpose in my opinion of having the system in the first place if someone can’t truthfully vote the way they want.

This is a lot of work for something that shouldn’t be problem with a voting system in the first place, like there is no point in voting if it’s not anonymous. I can see the reason that mods and admins should have to have it but it defeats the purpose of voting in the first place if it’s not anonymous, personally speaking if one should be fully open, up votes should be not Anonymous but down votes which are going to be the target of harassment should be anonymized

fully agree. Percentage based tipping has never made much sense to me, like the same amount of work doesn’t change based off the menu prices

My main issue with that ideology, while I fully understand that train of thought; Is that that’s literally their job. It’s not like the guest is coming in and being like yo what were the Powerball numbers last night, can you look up if the Dodgers made it into the series? It’s literally questions that as part of their job.

Now if the Barista was like the one that I had a year or so back where they were out of an item and instead of just saying oh we’re out, was able to appropriately give an alternative that actually tasted damn close to what the original drink was, you bet your ass I gave them a five. But if that Barista is just telling me what’s on the menu and what’s in the drink, that is what I would expect the Barista to be able to do regardless and I don’t feel like that’s going above and beyond or worth a tip

Fucking over the tip staff is going to happen either way. It’s just one is a swift off with the head where the other one is a slow bleed.

It’s been interesting reading this comment chain because both sides share the same ideology as seems of wanting tipped culture to go away, it’s just they have vastly different opinions of how to do so.

Myself? I hate the tip structure as well. I tip for positions that require it so dine in and hair shops basically, but I believe that if everyone stop tipping at once the impact would be far less severe for the worker overall then if people just stopped going there. This is because when people stop going to an establishment there’s no clear Direction of why they’re no longer going to the establishment, so management may not correlate that with the pay structure of the employee so instead they’re going to reduce the hours on the employee while keeping the employee on payroll. On paper this sounds like a good idea, Until you realize that the employee is going to want to go elsewhere but they’re not going to want to risk their income Source by going elsewhere, so you now have a part-time employee who wants to find a job but is running into the same issue that people who work at Walmart have where every job out there who’s hiring for part-time wanrs open availability(open to close) and instantly by having that original job you’re finding yourself lower on the application list then the person who doesn’t have a job.

by just everyone refusing to tip, it’s very clear that their objecting the Mantra of tipped culture, and it will tell the worker that if they are not happy with the minimum wage that the establishment is willing to pay, that they need to start looking elsewhere, while also not lowering that employees hours due to the fact that customers are still coming to the establishment. The only difference is the employee is now making the minimum wage and the establishment is now paying the full wage no longer being subsidized by the customer.

I believe that everyone just no longer tipping in general is better because the worker while making less an hour (assuming tips make higher than min wage) is still working full shifts while being able to look for a job on the side. Where with everyone no longer going not only is the worker making less because they’re not getting the tip money, but they’re also working less while being given a lower priority on the application list.

Without looking into a detailed history of what you might have said that spurt it, Pay attention to the instances that it’s coming from, a lot of times you will notice that those users are coming from specific instances. I noticed this as well and there’s some instances that I haven’t blocked fully yet but I am debating.

It is very toxic, but if you don’t let it get to you it’s just a simple block and move on. I don’t see as much toxicity on the platform as I did a few months ago by doing this method, and there are quite a bit of people that do take the time to give constructive feedback and have a civil conversation.

My experience overall on the fediverse is overall positive.

Hidden text because is off topic from ops post >! and while this is a little off topic of your post I would also encourage people to turn off your scores(the upvote/downvote system). Most third-party clients give you the ability to do it and I have had them turned off myself basically since my second month mark. It helps remove a lot of the hive mind / populous bias/ Argumentum ad populum(this is a link it’s just spoiler hides it) that occurs by being able to see the scores. Due to the fact that the system works as a whole by judging the score in the sorting system you don’t lose the ability to see the more popular stuff towards the top, so really unless you care about how many people are liking your posts, there is no cons to disabling!<

Others have said this but, that’s because the merchant has changed the item listed. I don’t believe Amazon should even allow this as a possibility but it does so because they allow it sellers will regularly put an item they know will rate really well out for a few months to get a lot of high rating, and then they’ll swap it out for an item that is either something else they want to sell that usually doesn’t sell as often or something that’s a little lower quality but because they had the old item first all of the reviews for the old item is now stacked onto the new item which makes it look better than it actually is

On top of this, Amazon is able to remember what you purchased in the past so when it gives you those notices it doesn’t give you the current information on the item it gives you the information that provided when the item was purchased, so for example if you asked a question on the item, using what they received they’re probably thinking that you’re the dumb one because they likely got an email showing a dash camera with the same question