Wait, what do you mean that's wrong?

Agree. Sometimes my notifications are a war zone, with up and down mods. back and forth.

Yes, I've seen downright seditious and threatening ov violent harm in a few groups, and the person suffers no consequence. Someone might have reported you for just having a different opinion. When spring outside of an echo chamber, people in the echo chamber go Reeee!

Especially if you answer certain groups who appear to enjoy "punishing" those who disagree with them. Some even enjoy the experience.

Us ancients recall when a gentleman who later joined the board of Annals of Improbable Research and was tagged in that magazine as "convicted criminal" wrote one of the first software worms, only it worked better than he thought and escaped the University network and infected a few zillion machines on the internet.

More accurate to say the bill of rights prohibits the government ( largely ) from certain actions.

Taking this a step further, who enforces "human rights" in dealing with businesses and citizens, if not the government? Who's to say that's a good thing anyway. Why can't I restrict access to me and mine from someone saying things I don't agree with? That's if you believe your "human rights" are equally and fairly applied, of course, which we all know they aren't.

No, the only sane approach to something like freedom of speech is to restrict the government and otherwise let people do as they will.

Ban it for them.

I recall as a rebellious 13 year old, I started smoking. Developed a 2+ pack a day habit. Started drinking. It wasn't because I enjoyed it all that much, but it was an adult thing, and forbidden. Turned 19 and quit. Wasn't fun any more. Now it's coffee, and the occasional wee dram of a good bourbon or perhaps tequila on date night with the missus.

But now there is a new "adult" thing for the kids.

It is not to say that social media is not bad for them. It certainly is. That shit is ruining prople, ruining relationships, and spreading lies and disseminating malware. But banning it is certainly an enticement for the kids.

TFA leads off with: "Weather happens in the boundary layer, the atmosphere from ground level to a few thousand metres, but this can be difficult to study in detail: weather stations are too low, and aircraft are expensive."

So, a very targeted augment. To what extent are they firing off balloons simply to grab that boundary layer data rather than the 30km stuff they're great at? I don't know. I suspect that even if not a single balloon is replaced, getting a bunch of high resolution low altitude data upwind of population centers will make the local forecasts a lot better.

We're also now in the era where we're learning what less balloon data looks like, that was one of the cuts DOGE did to the NWS. So getting back SOME data in a more efficient way can only help.

I know, right?

Sorry you feel that way, but it's a reasonable take on reality. There are two types of situations: Situations where you want to learn about X and situations where you need to know the answer to some very specific, but narrow question about X. For the second question, giant, ad-laden websites where the answer is buried in a pile of unrelated information are basically a disservice. You're paying for the information not just by watching their ads, but by wading through all the other crap.

In an ideal universe, there would be some sort of micropayment system, where websites earned money just from people visiting, and it came out of a fund paid into by ISPs, and the amount paid would be proportional to how many sites the Internet users of the world hit that day, and it would have some way of avoiding payment to link farms and other similar garbage content. And this would be an international system, and it would be designed in a way that somehow perfectly preserved privacy while maintaining auditability. I have no idea what that would look like, of course.

In the absence of such a scheme, though, there will always be a tug of war for power between content creators and browser/search companies, because the latter are trying to do what is best for the user in the short term, and the former are trying to get paid to protect what is best for the user in the long term. And I'm really not sure how to solve that problematic power dynamic, except by suggesting that perhaps that tug of war might actually be the solution, because it means neither side has too much power and control.

Apparently not, or at least the web version refused when I asked.

I suppose you could just claim I'm making shit up. I'm not complaining about being targeted unfairly, but allow me to explain.

If you get banned, then whine about it, saying "They're so mean!" That is complaining about being unfairly targeted. Exactly.

I noted I was, then surmising what I might have done wrong. In your world, is everyone of one mind? And all thinking in lockstep? And that any decision among all would be the same? Perhaps you live in an alternative universe of puppy dogs and rainbows. In the real universe, there are differing opinions. Sometimes certain opinions are prioritized.

Bloody hell, there are a fair number of people In here who would love to have me banned from Slashdot. Although I seldom swear, some find themselves violently disagreeing with me - I even have a few stalkers, who mod me down when I post objective truth. So you're claiming I am dissembling, or posting violent threats or whatever you made up in your head that I'm omitting for - what - internet pity? That's rather amusing.

Back before Youtube became a little more inclusive I got banned from an address, and they wouldn't say why. As far as I can tell, it was a post I made about some women seem to always pick abusive mates. I must have been reported for that. Unfortunately, that is an objective truth. But not one that was politically correct at the time. So I pissed off someone that made a complaint, and that complaint landed on a person who shared that. Or maybe an algorithm issue - who knows?

https://www.psychologytoday.co....

And yes, Slashdot's moderation method, which allows people to mod posts up or down, then allows users to block out posts below a certain level is the best moderation concept ever.

Probably still happening, but I remember when the first few Word docs were sent out with the full "edit / change history" contained within.
Almost as dumb -- on Microsoft's part, as allowing you to embed , say an Excel workbook inside a Word doc. Practicallly nobody understood that the entire workbook was there not just the weenie little table being displayed.

Not certain where to put this in, but has anyone else noticed that license plates are getting a little bland? https://cdn.abcotvs.com/dip/im.... In real life, the liberty bell is much more subdued. And many other states are switching to what has to be a lot more easily scanned.

The irony is a plate that is designed to be surveilled has "Let Freedom Ring" on it.

It's a little like in here. I'll post objective truth, but since I pissed off someone that week that got some mod points, I get modded down. At least on Slashdot, it doesn't disappear.