Hey, congratulations on the employment!

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

That’s a bit difficult because I already go into anything from The Onion knowing it’s intended to be humorous/satirical.

What I lack in ability to recognize satire or outright deception from posts written online, I make up for by reading comment threads: seeing people accuse things of being fake, seeing people defend it as true, seeing people point out the entire intention of a website is satire, seeing people who had a joke go over their heads get it explained… relying on the collective hivemind to help me out where I am deficient. It’s not a perfect solution at all, especially since people can judge wrong—I bet some “omg so fake” threads were actually real, and some astroturf-type things written to influence others without real experience behind it got through as real.

You are right about the thespian thing, but when you watch TV/film/theatre everyone is in on the “joke” and we all know they’re not really falling in love, getting murdered, or whatever dramatic happening. I’m not sure if OOP is just trying to entertain and expects everyone to realize they’re joking, which would stick them on the thespian side, or if they have other motives. But hey, interesting point to bring up!

deleted by creator

Thanks!

I really wish people did not do this. This isn’t something I was ever taught to look for, and I like to think I got a good education. I was taught to make sure my source is credible, to consider biases and spin and what things are facts and what is just opinion, but I wasn’t taught to look for a lot of deception people call out online. But I guess I have to live with this and gain the skill to look for deception. Genuinely, thanks for helping me, since I don’t think I ever would have figured out what raises “fake” flags in most peoples’ heads on my own.

Thanks!

I’m entirely too trusting and would like to know what about the phrasing tips you off that it’s fictional. Back on Reddit I remember so many claims about posts being fake and I was never able to tease out what distinguished the “omg fake! r/thathappened” posts from the ones that weren’t accused of that, and I feel this is a skill I should be able to have on some level. Although taking an amusing post that wasn’t real as real doesn’t always have bad consequences.

But I mostly asked because I’m curious about the weird extra width on letters.

Is that what the weird extra width on some letters is, artifacts from some AI generating the post?

I could swear there was such an add-on that was this but non-NSFW, but maybe I’m misremembering.

deleted by creator

I find it funny that the pufferfish blows up at its own gunshot

Also asexual.

Just consider most people really like sex, and some experience it as a very intense physical want to the point it makes sense that a bad version of it is better than none at all. Sort of similar to food. Better to have bad-tasting food and at least sate your hunger than to have nothing and starve.

Although, of course, it breaks down. The comments talk about actively harmful sex people wouldn’t want as well as harmful documentation; bad sex and documentation is not actually always better than no sex or no documentation. In the analogy, this would be sex that gives you an STD, or documentation that sends you running in circles and misleads you.

I’ve found a lot of understanding sex comes with just understanding a lot of people really really want it and experience it as a nigh-on need. Maybe liken it to some intense desires you have, things you need to be happy that you nonetheless don’t need to survive. (Of course, this is a generalization, I understand not all people with sexual desires have them this intensely. Some don’t need it to be happy but would sure like it a lot. And some might even get it more mildly. But for the purpose of understanding more mainstream jokes, analogies, etc. about sex…)

deleted by creator

I was a happy MuseScore user before and after the UI changes. So this post brings to mind questions that usually float in my mind:

• When I can happily use a thing whose UX is criticized: is it just because I don’t know any better alternatives, or because I’ve spent so long with it that of course I know how to work it? Or is the UX really not that bad? Or is it that there are often general solutions for most of the population, but sometimes some people take really well to things that work poorly for others and vice versa? Is it that the hated parts are bits I do not touch much in my workflow, so of course I see no problems because I am not interacting with the problem parts?
• When I have difficulty using a thing whose UX is praised or has no criticism: is it because I am smoothbrained? That I just have not had enough time trying to figure it out, so of course I struggle and just need to apply myself more? Is it something that works for most, but it will not work for everyone? Am I in a really niche use case with bad UX that nobody else has bothered to complain about?

I do not have enough UX knowledge to criticize or make objective evaluations here. I only have how easy it is for me to navigate applications. Though I would like to work on gaining it someday, especially so I can help out FOSS targets of “bad UX” complaints.

Some people actively desire this kind of algorithm because they find it easier to find content they like this way. I’m not sure if they are immune to doomscrolling and actually have gotten it to work in a way that serves them and doesn’t involve doomscrolling, or if they are doomscrolling and okay with it. But for me, I really wish I could go back to the chronological feed era.

If you thought this was fun you might like https://jsisweird.com/ with similar questions

This is both sweet and funny. I’d love to have a spouse like that. Thanks for taking care of them :)

deleted by creator