This mix of "things that are possible/reasonable" and "things that are wildly speculative" is interesting.

Producing beef is the most inefficient way to produce food, in both use of space and water, and energy.

Reasonable/possible

We don’t need to impose things on people if humanity reduces its beef consumption.

Wild speculation / nonsensical.

This is not at all how large societies have worked, in any time period, ever.

While it might be technically true, it's missing a whole bunch of steps in the middle for it to be a practicality.

If we cut beef consumption by half, literally oligarchs would not have an economic reason to deforest the Amazon, because of the price drops. But no one wants to do that.

• Palm Oil
• Real Estate
• Mineral Speculation
• Wood

And that was just off of the top of my head.

Oligarchs gonna oligarch, removing one revenue source isn't going to suddenly kill interest in the amazon, with it's abundant resources and space.

I think there's more nuance to that than warrants a full good vs bad.

Unless you mean "aren't a good person" as potentially including neutral.

Wait, i thought that technically correct was the best kind of correct ? i have been LIED TO.

People are people, manage your expectations accordingly.

These kinds of federated services were never meant to be better than reddit in a content sense, all they do is provide a system in which the possibility of a subjectively better platform was possible.

More simply, federated services are about federation/decentralisation.

The idiomatic solution to the problem you're describing is either to:

start your own federated instance, with the prerequisite amount of hookers and blackjack, but also sufficient rules and moderational enforcement to adhere to your expectations of what a better reddit looks like.

or

find an instance that already does this and join it.

This is a thing that is possible in a federated service, which is the actual difference between reddit and lemmy/piefed etc

a bunch of ebay specials with more ebay parts scavenged over time + some 3d printing.

The centre tower has a miniitx mb and PSU behind those panels to run the NAS, and the drive bays are in the bottom.

The right is a failover cluster that isn't finished yet.

Volume and Moderation.

Generating slop is significantly quicker.

You get an increase in volume of people pushing slop, which then has to be reviewed. In addition to the increase in submissions you also get the increase in fidelity/general complexity of the submissions.

Reviewing a PR generated by LLM's used by amateurs is more involved than an equivalent PR written directly by said amateur.

Straight up coding mistakes aren't most of the issue, it's the complex architectural and logical bugs that are going to be the problems.

Stuff that's functional but logically/architecturally unsound is much harder to spot and it's significantly easier to generate these kinds of issues with an LLM than to write them out by hand.

If someone submits bullshit AI generated code he will be ignored in the future.

Like this for example, a seemingly reasonable functional argument that is relatively logically unsound, in that is focuses on a narrow "happy path" and ignores where the actual issues are.

1 . To get to the stage where you can block this person you need to review the code first and identify if there is an issue.

Doing this for LLM generated code takes longer, on average.

2. It's also now possible for people less skilled to generate a higher volume of code that looks more reasonable, so that increases the total amount of reviews needed.

So the existing process of reviewing people and code is now a multiple more difficult and resource consuming.

Which is generally what people want addressed.

Can LLM's help?, possibly.

Are there issues that are going to become a large resource problem if we don't actually address them, yes.

It being a real and powerful motivational force means it's one of the more useful covers.

Just because it motivates the voters/customers doesn't mean it's the genuine reason behind a decision.

I cannot think of a single recent "think of the children" based action that was intended to and actually helped the children in a meaningful way.

Can you?

Spotify paid ridiculous sums of money, specifically to get Joe Rogan.

They absolutely do not care about complaints about tate.

Not to say you shouldn't try, you should, just that it's screaming into the void until the monetary price of continuing support is greater than at least some combination of sunk cost + potential profit. ( so $250m + whatever their profit projections are ).

"This stops them from killing babies" and "This also predominantly affects the group I don't like" aren't mutually exclusive ideas

Or perhaps decide that interaction with such a person isn't viable.

There is no requirement to adopt others particular eccentricities or needs, choosing to not engage can also be a valid choice.

There are of course potential downsides to this, but if each person is unwilling to adhere to a common contract of communication then the cessation of communication is a reasonable response.

Brazil (1985)

you mean the faces that are already posted by the FBI for everyone to see ?