It's pretty clear that most people are also familiar with quote-before too. It is how quotes usually work, from textbooks, to forums, to all social media except twitter derivatives. We're on one such social media right now.
Even on twitter and derivatives, when viewing a reply chain, messages are ordered top-to-bottom, it's only the quotation that's the odd one out.
China nowadays has the capacity to steamroll half of asia into compliance. Instead they build alliances/partnerships via trade, even with countries they ideologically disagree with. It's less profitable in the short-term but leads to more predictable and stable development in the region, which benefits them massively in the long-term. Crazy what you can do if you think in centuries and not quarters.
It was used to deliver the comic to you in the first place.
Who the fuck uses mailing lists anymore? It’s 2025.
Like half of the software stack for the server you're writing this on is developed via a mailing list.
Its cool though, your opinion of how it should work is the only one that matters, not the actual reality of how 99% of users do things and how they expect things to work.
As I've said, nobody expects quote-after replies. It's just the default behavior that people pay no attention to. If you disable quotes-after, most email users would not care, since all modern email clients show full email threads anyways.
It's not user expectations, It's just a default behavior imposed by some mail clients, because engineers wanted to add auto-quotes, but a quote-before would require people to actually think while writing an email. It would be better to just not quote at all, but it is what it is now. If the default behavior switched to no-quote, no-one would notice, because nobody looks at those things anyways.
If you use a software development mailing list and do quote-after, chances are you will be told to stop that. If someone has to actually read and understand your emails in full, instead of skimming them for the one line of info they need, quote-after is not a feasible way to write them.
Advocating for the status quo just because it is the status quo is no argument.
sent from my thinkpad
halcyoncmdr:
Thats a lot of words to try and justify not understanding that’s how 99% of people use email.
It’s the default way hitting reply basically everywhere formats a response email. It’s also the way email responses to automated ticketing systems like zendesk tell you to respond, literal instructions at the top of their email saying “please type your reply above this line”.
So that’s what people do. Your preference is nothing compared to 99% of user expectations.
balsoft:
It fucking sucks for emails too. I can’t tell you the vicious hatred quote-after causes in everyone who actually uses emails for work. Quotes in emails are supposed to be interleaved with the text you are writing: quote part of an email, respond to it, repeat. Just like here on Lemmy or any other messenger or forum. If you look at places where email is actually used for work (like software development mailing lists), this is how it is used still to this day. Worst-case, if you’re lazy but feel the need to add a quote, add it before, so that I see the context before I read your reply. But most likely if you’re doing that, you don’t need the quote at all.
Quote-at-the-end is just a pointless waste of resources imposed on us, mostly by Google. If after reading your email I wanted to read the rest of the thread, I would read the rest of the thread, I have a god damn email client!
halcyoncmdr:
Because that’s not how it was ever intended to be read. Look at it from a different perspective.
When quoting a tweet, it’s laid out like an email. Responses are at the top of the email, not the bottom. You go down as you go back through the email chain. The bottom one is the first one. It’s not laid out for sharing a screenshot of a conversation, because that was never the intended use case of the layout.
From that perspective, the layout makes complete sense, and it works perfectly for its intended use. Posting random screenshot out of context to social media was not a consideration.
rafoix:
Is it so difficult to organize things to be read from top to bottom?
The intended use-case is for bit-banging, i.e. sending electricity to places according to certain algorithms. Think about simple automation, like the control chip in your washing machine which executes the selected program by sending enable/disable signals to the water pump, valves, and the motor. Well, the same basic principles could apply to a lot of industrial processes and such, helping us rebuild the civilization.
It would also be really fucking great for helping post-collapse engineers do various calculations. Those chips are really slow by modern standards, but insanely fast compared to an abacus, a slide rule, and a sheet of paper.
BTW there's also dusk OS, which follows similar principles but is targeted for more advanced hardware, like the abundant x86 and ARM chips. It has a way more user-friendly interface, a basic GUI, filesystem drivers, and IIRC even networking capabilities, all possible to run on a PC from the early 90s. It also has great bootstrapping flow, allowing you to rebuild itself from source, flash itself to other computers, and flash Collapse OS onto microcontrollers.
Basically like a Linux install with all the dev-tools and sources already there, except much simpler, to the point that you probably can figure out how every component of the system works yourself, and fix issues when they happen. This knowledge will also directly translate into writing programs for collapse OS, because they share the programming language and many OS paradigms.
When quoting a tweet, it’s laid out like an email. Responses are at the top of the email, not the bottom. You go down as you go back through the email chain. The bottom one is the first one. It’s not laid out for sharing a screenshot of a conversation, because that was never the intended use case of the layout.
It fucking sucks for emails too. I can't tell you the vicious hatred quote-after (a.k.a. top-posting) causes in everyone who actually uses emails for work. Quotes in emails are supposed to be interleaved with the text you are writing: quote part of an email, respond to it, repeat. Just like here on Lemmy or any other messenger or forum. If you look at places where email is actually used for work (like software development mailing lists), this is how it is used still to this day. Worst-case, if you're lazy but feel the need to add a quote, add it before, so that I see the context before I read your reply. But most likely if you're doing that, you don't need the quote at all.
Quote-at-the-end is just a pointless waste of resources imposed on us, mostly by Microsoft and Google. If after reading your email I wanted to read the rest of the thread, I would read the rest of the thread, I have a god damn email client!
From that perspective, the layout makes complete sense, and it works perfectly for its intended use.
No it doesn't, even a lazy quote-entire-thing-at-the-top would work better, because it provides context before I read the reply. This is just how most western languages work, they are read top-to-bottom. Imagine if a book had its chapters ordered in reverse order!
If you look at the history of military operations performed by both countries, it's pretty clear which one is the more likely option
Just another "free thinker" who believes that a country of 1 billion people, with good quality cheap/free higher education, a massive industrial base, and half a trillion dollars of annual R&D expenditure, can't develop tech on their own. I'm sure there's industrial/military espionage going on, but China is also pulling ahead in many research areas independently. With the way US is treating its scientists, I fully expect in a few years China will be the dominant STEM player in the world, US being second or third after europe.
Would they benefit from having an F-35 to take apart? Yes. Will they build a relatively competitive fighter jet without any F-35 tech for half the price or less? Also yes.
I guess it's because technically the US hasn't been at war since WW2, and so ships sunk since then were not considered enemy ships. Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Gulf, and Iraq were all technically not wars but just "special military operations" or whatever. Where do you think Putin gets most of his aspirations and ideas?
No sympathy for class traitors. ACAB.
Pigs are very smart (smarter than dogs), empathetic to their kind, and above all are extremely adorable and cute. So it is also ok to call someone a piggy as a mutually consensual term of endearment.
Out of interest, what are your usual reading habits? To me Marx seemed like an outright joyread compared to his predecessor Hegel (I will admit that I haven't finished any of his works). It was also more fun than some fiction stuff I've read.
I like how the rememes of this only get more complicated and less stable with time; hopefully this means the collapse is approaching, or else I'm learning forth for nothing!
If you get banned in a community, you will get a big red Banned in this Community flair next to your comments, and you shouldn't be able to post anything there (depends on the app you're using, I guess). There's also the modlog.
There’s less of the funky shadow banning that Reddit does here, where your posts are rendered invisible to anyone but yourself without you knowing. I don’t think that can happen at all.
I'm pretty sure it can happen sometimes. If you try to post to a community you're banned in, you might still be able to hit "send", it will show up in your profile, and yet it won't be seen by anyone in that community. I've never bothered to figure out why this happens (and only sometimes), maybe there's also something funky going on with defederation between instances.
Honestly Capital is ok. It's simultaneously quite dry and also full of lengthy examples, but it's far from the worst in terms of readability, especially compared to other german philosophers. Marx repeats his key points and ideas like 3 times in different ways, so it's not too difficult to understand, it just takes some time. At the very least, read the communist manifesto, it's short and gets across some of the key results from Capital.
Lenin is even better, at least in terms of writing style, he writes in a very down-to-earth language about down-to-earth issues. It's straight to the point and engaging to read, even if I don't agree with him on everything. (although I read most of his works as originals, so can't speak to the quality of the english translations).
I get that reading is not for everyone, especially nowadays, both with the reduction in attention span and more expressive forms of content being easily available. At the same time, for people who do read regularly, even if it's mostly fiction, reading theory is a fine idea. It doesn't take as long as you might think and it gives you a more complete picture of the world in many ways.
I guess we have vastly different expectations from our phones, then. At a minimum, I need to:
And in my experience, Librem5 just doesn't have enough processing power and RAM to do any of those quickly and reliably. It was not comfortable at all, e.g. the browser kept filling up RAM and locking up the device with constant swapping, and finally OOMing. GPS took 5-10 minutes to get a lock, even with AGPS, and after that wouldn't reliably keep it. Both Nheko and NeoChat were slow and laggy. It also died after 4-5 hours of suspend with a modem on, unacceptable for a reliable daily.
OnePlus6 is a rocketship in comparison, and performs all those tasks with ease. The battery also lasts for an entire day with conservative suspend settings (but with the modem on), and for a couple days in airplane mode (e.g. while hiking in the mountains).
Capitalism can create innovation, but capitalism is not necessary for it. The very same innovation could have happened if the state spent a fraction of this money on R&D, without all the insane Terraform Mars T-shirts and 3 companies wasting resources to do pretty much exactly the same thing three times. Sadly the american government is not an effective redistributor of wealth, and any NASA budget comes with a million (dumb) strings attached, like spending it on certain projects that benefit the state senator who voted for it.
Also, I don't know where you get that 50x number, SpaceX lowered the launch cost maybe by about 3-4x compared to contemporary chinese rockets.
¿Por qué no los dos? I mean, if you actually go to developing nations you will see that they are investing into real infrastructure that improves the standards of living dramatically. They also intend to turn some profit off of it. Most likely much of that profit will be in building long-term economic relations, rather than immediate rent-seeking, which can be viewed as "trapping nations in debt traps", or as "investing into development". They also invest with much fewer strings attached compared to IMF, which is a win comparatively speaking.