lvxferre

I did well in pragmatics. My bane was syntax - that professor did a really poor job even to explain the basics, for example I still don't know why the hell you're supposed to spam XP, X' and X in generative trees even if they won't branch out anyway.

The volume of a mixture cannot be described by a simple sum of the volume of its components. As such, this does not make the statement "1+1=2" false in this situation; it's still true but irrelevant, there's no "+" here on first place.

Additionally, let us suppose for a moment that the reasoning above is invalid. Even then, it's still an objective matter - because then the truth value of "1+1=2" would vary depending on the object (are we dealing with apples, or liquid mixtures?), not on the subject (who's mixing the liquids - you or me?).

I disagree that this is subjective. Even if someone hypothetically doesn't accept the ZF[C], the statement still accurately describes reality, in a way that doesn't depend on the subject. For example, you can't start with two apples and two oranges and have five or tree fruits.

What you said immediately reminded me Grice's "Logic and Conversation". The author outline what he calls "conversational maxims", that resemble a lot your five bullet points - except that they don't just apply to technical writing, they're more like principles that we "automatically" use in human conversation. They are:

1. Maxim of quantity - "be as informative as possible and needed, and no more."
2. Maxim of quality - "be truthful; don't give false or unconfirmed info."
3. Maxim of relation - "be relevant; say things that are pertinent to the discussion."
4. Maxim of manner - "be clear, brief, and orderly; avoid obscurity and ambiguity."

Those four maxims are constantly being violated by the speakers, as they're in conflict with each other. For example, clarity (maxim of manner) often requires simplifying things, to the point that they aren't as accurate (maxim of quality) as before.

This is relevant here because, if you can't avoid violating those maxims, you need to reach a compromise. And good writing is about finding a good compromise for the target readers.

I'm fine with replies correctly filling what I've deleted with actual and meaningful info.

Instead, most of the time, I regret it due to some reply misrepresenting what I said - because the replier is now assuming shit, or interpreting literally a figure of speech that I've used for brevity, etc.

A "fuck Pierre" challenge sounds fun!

The ONLY hard part is apples. Only two locations. The fruit cave and the weird travelling merchant lady. We call her Mabel.

The 8th prize ticket reward is a toss coin between apple and pomegranate tree saplings. Mystery boxes also give you apple tree saplings; the odds are small (0.1%), but they also give you non-flower seeds: ~13% of the time, so it might be worth to actually look for them.

My definition of "objectivity" is "the approach towards a philosophical matter that seeks to minimise the role of the subject in said matter".

For example:

• If I say "two plus two equals four", I'm being objective. My statement should be true regardless of who is saying it, who's doing the maths, etc.
• If I say "In my opinion, green apples are great", I'm not being objective. I'm being subjective: I'm acknowledging that the statement "green apples are great" is accurate for one subject (me), but it might not be accurate for other subjects (perhaps you don't like green apples).

what do you think of it?

Truth is objective and should be handled objectively. Gravity doesn't stop working because you're in a bad mood; 2+2 doesn't fluctuate between 3 and 5 depending on the observer; either a past event happened, or it didn't.

Other philosophical matters are better handled subjectively. For example, morality; something can be good or bad depending on the subject, and there's no way to handle this objectively.

I don't know, even if I'm extremely prone to write huge walls of text, and need to actually take my time to abridge them.

(And every bloody time that I do abridge it, some reply makes me regret it.)

The issue is that Reddit became a place to host OC because it had such a large userbase.

It's a feedback loop: users attract OC, OC attracts users. We [Lemmy/Mbin/PieFed users] can feed this loop from one, another, or both sides at once, and I believe that currently we should be focusing on the OC side more.

Originally, it was just a link agregators based on votes, there were not even comments or subs.

That is true. However there's a catch: Reddit's main competitor Digg was also just a link aggregator, while our main competitor (2024 Reddit) is already way more than just that. We don't have the luxury to follow the same steps as Reddit followed and hope that we'll succeed as Reddit did.

There is some OC created here in [email protected] for instance

Some of that content is really good, but it's missing contact info that can be backtracked to Lemmy. It's content made to consume inside Lemmy and nowhere else.

but realistically, if someone made a nice infographic today, would they really only post it here on Lemmy, and not share it on Reddit as well, the picture itself, without any reference to Lemmy, to avoid their publication to get removed?

Yes if they are specifically creating said content to nurture Lemmy. And then as people share someone else's content in Reddit, they can't simply remove that authorship info, even if it's a link to a Lemmy profile - that's the same as lying that you created what you didn't create, you know?

Edit: Instagram and Twitter would also be places to reach a much wider audience compared to here

Instagram could be worth a try.

I think that Twitter would have the same problems as you mentioned for Mastodon (people preferring the microblogging format), plus the same that we get from Reddit (your typical 2024 Twitter user isn't healthy to have around).

Perhaps the question is instead "how?".

Like, instead of looking where we should advertise Lemmy (is it Reddit? Mastodon? Old style forums? etc.), what if we advertised it through original content? If it's good enough it'll be shared by people who aren't even Lemmy users, and reach multiple places at once. If we include in that OC links to our profiles (as authorship) it's automatically bringing people here, from a more diverse userbase, as they seek more of that stuff.

I feel like this strategy is actually viable nowadays, unlike (say) before the 3rd party app fiasco, since for at least some content we already reached a critical mass.

Infographics in special are a really good way to do so, I think. And the format is flexible enough that you can put anything in an infographic, from cooking stuff to some fandom (I'm looking at the Star Trek fans in the Fediverse) to how to degoogle yourself or even political stuff.

‘Witch hunts’ sounds like somebody got called out for their bad behavior.

I can't speak for the OP, but on general grounds:

Witch hunts aren't the result of someone being called out for their bad behaviour. It's when someone assumes that you behave badly.

Or, for a slightly less sloppy definition: "to witch hunt is to publicly denounce someone or something as coming from a socially undesirable group of people, without rational grounds to do so. Note that the last part is key here.

I also think that the Lemmy userbase should be recruited from more different places than just Reddit. The main difference is "why" - I care about norms, not normies; Reddit culture established all those shitty social norms that bring out the worst of everyone: irrationality/stubbornness, soapboxing, entitlement, so goes on.

Witch hunting is only an issue here because of that Reddit culture - because it's what make someone

• assume that someone else is a witch, without rational grounds to do so;
• keep stubbornly insisting that someone else is a witch even after being shown contrariwise;
• screech at anyone who defends the not-witch "why are you defending a witch? You must be also a witch REEEEE".

I think that a good solution for this problem would be instance admins and moderators to explicitly disallow witch hunting, and admins defederate from instances enabling such behaviour. (Or potentially bring it to legal grounds since witch hunting fits nicely the legal def of libel in plenty countries.) But that's just me throwing ideas, take it for a grain of salt.

Federation with Threads is by no means a big concern nowadays, since most instances did the right thing and defederated it.