I’m not sure why that’s a conceptual hurdle. Electromagnetic radiation, including the visible light spectrum, is one of the primary methods in which we gather data about and interpret the universe. To say that the matter is “dark” is to say that it’s not detectable on the electromagnetic spectrum to us as we know it.

It’s not an uncommon turn of phrase, it’s the same reasoning for the colloquial term “going dark” regarding radio communication silence.

To say that it’s “invisible” or “clear” would imply the existence of some property causing it to be so. This would also imply the presence of interpretable data in order to term it as such, when in truth none exists. You could perhaps say “unknown” but then that’s truly arbitrary, “dark” at least implies the opposite of “light”, i.e. detectable and serves a conjectural purpose in that sense.

@marass

You could also say that women who are not married by 30 have other priorities and marriage isn’t one of them. There seems to be a saturation point for each generation after which the uptick slows to a trickle. You could make the argument that fewer women in each successive generation are making marriage a “must” in life.

I would bet you this data would be inverted for women with a college degree by given age, i.e. younger generations are achieving higher levels of education by 30, but it likely levels off gradually as well since not everyone attends college.

You’re thinking of the Space Force.

SPACECOM is a unified command that has its origins in the 1980s. It is entirely necessary and handles real things including military satellites and missile defense.

You're right, and that model actually forced/encouraged development and innovation of the software. If they didn’t make it compelling, no one would buy the new version. Now with the subscription model, these companies don’t need to do anything more than putting a new shade of lipgloss on it every year, they have a captive audience. They can basically pull a Valve and just patch security flaws.

I’m not surprised at three of the four states, but New Jersey? WTH.

Unless Ernest changed this too and I missed it, boosts still work with the microblogging portion of the fediverse, such as Mastodon. Upvotes and downvotes only interact with the “threadiverse”.

So my understanding is that boosts are now reflecting on threads as 2 upvotes, whereas on microblog posts they reflect as boosts and as 2 upvotes but only on the threadiverse sites.

(Someone correct me if wrong please!)

In what way is it a huge deal? In what way was it loud? (Until now)

This person had a handful of heavily downvoted posts and interactions so they never made it to the “hot” or “active” pages.

(Are we talking about the same person?)

If you take a poll of everyone in this thread I would bet almost everyone hadn’t seen these posts or heard of the username.

But now they have, with the help of this post.

Streisand effect for sure. There seems to be run of these types of posts in the fediverse lately. People don’t seem to realize that sometimes they’re better off letting these situations take their natural course (and die), and not intervene unless it grows beyond manageability.

I think if you read the article you’ll find he’s actually an expert in this, on multiple levels. I had no idea previously.

I think it’s a fair point. They won’t be able to remain federated to many instances if their point of contention is open-enrollment.

I understand needing the Lemmy moderation tools to improve and that it’s temporary, but the damage to their own communities and users may not be temporary.

Their users will turn inward and end up preferring their own communities—which is fine. However it also means that non-beehaw users will shy away from those communities in favour of others, lest their home site get de-federated at some point for the same reasons. These effects combined means slow-to-grow, low-visibility communities in the fediverse, and increases the chance that their communities may dwindle if others of the same subject become pre-eminent outside of Beehaw.

In short, while I understand their reasons, I think that it risks making Beehaw.org permanently insular and ultimately much more similar to a non-fediverse website.

I think Google peaked about 6-8 years ago now and then started slipping at an ever accelerating rate.

It’s almost useless for me when searching anything remotely technical or otherwise niche.

I almost consistently need to go to the second page of results now, something I don’t remember doing since like 2009.

I find Bing acceptable. Brave search works well. But I’m actually using Kagi now since I’m hoping their paid model will actually mean I’m not the product.

This is really no different than Reddit. There have always been multiple subreddits for the same topic, with slightly different names. Many were created because the “originals” were found lacking at some point.

There’s nothing wrong with people having multiple options. We may eventually end up in a situation like Reddit where certain magazines/communities of the same topic are more trafficked than others and the less trafficked ones “die”.

I think there’s going to be a kind of lifecycle thing that comes with these things. They’ll sort of naturally sort themselves out. To artificially guide it one way or the other would be to imitate the mistakes of Reddit or past aggregate sites.