Yes I think that’s the correct interpretation

Just added this to my browser this morning, coincidentally! Not sure what thread it was, but I thought it was this one. Thanks for the link though, it’ll be a big help

Thank you very much! I wasn’t aware of these guidelines so it’s interesting to read

I think the notability is a little hard to define, so I could see some discussion happening, especially about more minute details like individual items in games. But it seems like, based on the existence of a Krillin page, that there is at least some precedent for somewhat broader topics

I see what you’re saying, but also I don’t think those analogies are necessarily fair. I don’t think putting Yoshi’s birthday on Wikipedia instead of Yoshipedia is quite as critical as a central bank failure

We’re on Lemmy, which is an aggregation source just like Wikipedia. Some knowledge is only stored here, while other knowledge is an external link. It’s not a bad thing to be a central point of information as long as it is a community-driven process with high levels of transparency, like Wikipedia.

Lemmy, however, works differently from Wikipedia or Reddit in that multiple services work together to be that aggregation source, which is great, and Wikipedia doesn’t have that, which is not great. So that of course could be better in an ideal world, and I would bet there is a federated Wiki service already out there

But, I’m not talking about life changing information here, I’m talking about what happened to Krillin in episode 700 of Dragon Ball Super, I think it’s okay if that information lives in one central location - especially since you can always just watch the episode again to verify

Do you happen to know where in the rules it would list the “level of relevance”. I did a cursory read through of the content guidelines but I didn’t see anything that would necessarily exclude descriptions of specific video game content, levels, or assets, but I’m no master at Wikipedia - I can’t say I’ve contributed much beyond donations.

Also I did mention those unique features some wikis have. For example, the Old School RuneScape Wiki has some really great calculators, maps, and data collectors, so I’m very happy with those. But for less popular ones where nobody is putting in the work to make the wiki exemplary feels like we may as well save time and not give Fandom money by using Wikipedia

And look and feel I would say is good unless it’s a fandom, and then all the look and feel in the world doesn’t justify those ads

One thing that recently had me pondering was why do we need separate wikis, why not just add the information to Wikipedia? Unless your wiki has some feature Wikipedia doesn’t support, it just seems to provide a background image and ads.

For example, I was looking up some Dragonball information, and their wiki was really sparse and didn’t answer my question. So I randomly tried Wikipedia and it had all my answers

My only guess is some Wikipedia usage rules that say not to but I find that unlikely

Yes both mine

As of late? It’s been shit for years.

It could also be the language choice, which one are you utilizing? I could see some languages having a worse experience than others.

I’ve found it is exceptionally smart with bash. It often knows what to do better than I can, because I’m no master at bash. I’m proficient enough to know when it’s right though, and it’s usually pretty on point.

The first two reasons, to me, feel like excuses to hide the true reason(s) they cheat. I’d wager it varies per person but that many just want to be seen as cool or skilled by having everything or beating everyone. It seems equivalent to people who modify cars to be extremely loud; despite many saying the contrary, they’ve convinced themselves that people love to hear their loud cars go by.

It could also be the anonymous effect of online games. They don’t quite perceive themselves as cheating, really, because they don’t know the players and will never know them. It likely feels like NPCs in a video game, for the most part. If there were actually social pressure, like would be in a schoolyard game of football, then far fewer would be willing to risk the social ostracization. But because they are anonymous online, they feel safe and empowered to cheat.

Like most have already said, the auto complete is top tier while the chat is hallucination-riddled and not always useful. I find that if I’m asking Chat a question, my problem is already so complex that the AI struggles to answer it without the entire context of the application. It will give me unrelated answers, fake answers, or extremely basic ones that miss the broader context. It’s really a coin flip on whether it will help.

I have also had the autocorrect make a mistake once and that was extremely annoying. It was the type of mistake I would have made but took way longer to figure out because I trusted it too much

Good lord they look exceptionally soft. It’s impossible to resist disturbing them

Yeah the news of this non-recusal came too soon after the other recusal. Very confusing timeline if you didn’t know there were two cases

The mathematical proof is that Elon owns several hundred million Tesla shares and his holding or selling of those shares will impact the share price of the judge’s shares. Up or down, the price will be impacted, that’s just how markets work. If he is forced to sell those shares to fund X, the judge will be impacted.

Also, you shouldn’t really need an exact proof for the judge’s recusal. There is a chance he is impacted by the result of the case in a significant monetary way, so why not pass the case to a judge who doesn’t have these connections. This isn’t the last judge in Texas (just one of the most partisan) so there is far greater upsides to recusal than downsides.

Why risk the optics of impropriety when you don’t have to?

For anyone confused by this headline, there are two trials this judge is considering for X

[O’Conner] was overseeing two lawsuits filed by X and recused himself from only one of the cases.

This isn’t the new case about the “illegal boycott” O’Conner has recused himself from that trial (likely) because he also owns stock in Unilever, one of the defending companies

In my opinion, it comes down to the wording of the U.S. judges’ code of conduct

A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned

While the link between Musk’s two companies might be debatable, it definitely raises “reasonable questions” about whether or not the judge can be impartial. It is much easier to recuse oneself then to try to deal with a mistrial, so the judge not recusing themselves is extremely suspicious.

Also, as to evidence to whether Musk’s involvement with X has impacted Tesla stock, that has been a matter of debate for a while. X is in a dire financial situation because of the loans taken out during the buyout. If they cannot get advertisers back on the platform, then either X goes bankrupt or Elon has to chip in his own money. Musk’s money is mostly locked in to Tesla stock, and if he sells a large number, the stock will inevitably go down. Therefore, if Elon loses this case, it is very possible that the judge will lose money.

I mean, I’m not much of a tinfoil hat, but this article feels extremely conveniently timed for Intel, who is currently going through a massive ordeal with their chips. Especially considering that the vulnerability is so extremely difficult to exploit that there’s borderline no story here for 99% of people but the headline will still drive clicks and drama.

Pocket is decent but I haven’t used it in years and definitely don’t want it to be a Dev priority

Yeah I personally actually prefer when programs conform to the OS UI as long as the UI is decent (cough Windows 8), it looks a lot more uniform and cohesive

No idea, I assume they at least list the numbers. But I want some pretty charts…