TehBamski

!adhd@lemmy.dbzer0.com would also like this.

1

A split second look had me wondering what a garden gnome (the bag of charcoal birquetts, a black lab looking at us with glowing green eyes, a soccer ball and a fire have to do with one another. I still don't know but there's a doggo.

𝔗𝚎𝚑 𝔅𝚊𝚖𝚜𝚔𝚒 @lemmy.world 3d ago

For sure, start with !bestoflemmy@lemmy.world and !lemmy411@lemmy.ca

And here are some of my favorite communities I would recommend.

!trippinthroughtime@lemmy.ca

!rpgmemes@ttrpg.network

!mealtimevideos@lemmy.cafe

!moviesuggestions@lemmy.world

!wikipedia@lemmy.world

!artporn@piefed.social

!general@lemmy.world (General Discussion)

1

𝔗𝚎𝚑 𝔅𝚊𝚖𝚜𝚔𝚒 @lemmy.world 5d ago

Holy cats!! I didn't know about this and now I want it in my life ASAP.

𝔗𝚎𝚑 𝔅𝚊𝚖𝚜𝚔𝚒 @lemmy.world 5d ago

Hahaha. You were missing something. The timeline where that's what we call a PB&J. All plausible.

𝔗𝚎𝚑 𝔅𝚊𝚖𝚜𝚔𝚒 @lemmy.world 5d ago

𝔗𝚎𝚑 𝔅𝚊𝚖𝚜𝚔𝚒 @lemmy.world 6d ago

That's the act now and think about it later, kinda thing. Most of us were trained as early as the age of 2 to 16 to not do that. But some forget the lesson or were never taught the lesson to begin with. Sad but true.

Although, there is a deceiving reason to do it. I couldn't decide on one term that I've heard more than the other, so I'll share them all.

Rage farming - deliberately creating outrage content for engagement
Performative activism - actions done more for visibility than impact
The attention economy - where virality itself has monetary value

Another that fits well is, Outrage profit.

...

This kind of act isn't as bad if you were gonna throw your toilet away anyway. And if you got enough people to watch it on YT or now TikTok, you could in theory, make enough or more to cover the cost of the item you destroyed. Rage bait is a chronic issue online. And sadly, I spent many years exposing myself to it and not realizing that most of it was an act or the post and/or poster was orchestrating it for their interests.

𝔗𝚎𝚑 𝔅𝚊𝚖𝚜𝚔𝚒 @lemmy.world 6d ago

You're doing better than at least 1/3 of the world. (This comment is not backed by science. Just by a feeling.)

1

𝔗𝚎𝚑 𝔅𝚊𝚖𝚜𝚔𝚒 @lemmy.world 7d ago

I can understand the feeling that it seems so young. But If we take into account that the World Wide Web, a public network, (or in other words, a non-military/government/higher education based network,) started in 1989 and opened up to the public in 1993. As for U.S. American's (and probably other countries as well), the internet infrastructure wasn't wasn't well established and ready to take on 10's of millions of WWW users daily. It wasn't until 1996 in the U.S., where we would have around 3,750,000 internet service users. (Using the population info from here for the rough estimate.) And according to the graph below, it wasn't until about midway through 2001 when the U.S. crossed over the 50% population with internet access.

(image from here)

So what I'm highlighting here is that, Wikipedia.org going live in 2001 is actually impressive for it's time. And it's old in comparison to a lot of main-stay websites. Also, remember Wikipedia wasn't asking for users to pay a monthly subscription or have to deal with seeing ads on the platform. So server costs even then, were being funded in other ways. All of that to me is seriously impressive.