I think the big question here is still where we land. It could easily be somewhere in the 20-30k range.

The implication that the experiment cited was at all meant to backup the assertion that there exists a

phenomena wherein men tend to feel the need to dominate discussions regardless of their actual qualifications

is very clearly a mischaracterization. What I did was describe the content of the video in a comments section otherwise devoid of any evidence that anybody had watched the video. If you are interested in looking into the body of work that establishes the tendency of men to talk over others, I have found the full-text of the fairly foundational metastudy “Understanding Gender Differences in Amount of Talk: A Critical Review of Research”. It’s notable that most of the research on this topic leading up to the present day has been framed as answering the age-old question “Do women talk more?”.

attributes a lot of reasons for why the men did this

Those are not reasons in so far as they are meant to explain the men’s motivations but rather the methods by which they wrestle and maintain control of the discourse. It’s important to understand that this is written largely to bring them to the attention of the folks that are actively marginalized by these activities, so that they may counter and dismantle these systems.

The video spends a long time on the phenomena wherein men tend to feel the need to dominate discussions regardless of their actual qualifications. It cites one experiment wherein 16 women and 9 men had an introductory conversation on the issue. During this conversation there were 6 active speakers. 4 men speaking for a total of 9 minutes and 2 women who spoke for a total of 1 minute. These tendencies are mostly due to individuals desires to claim leadership of a group but absolutely leave us “paralysed and unable to push for the necessary policy changes”. If you are interested in watching any portion of the video, you can skip to the part that I mentioned by going here.

The paper that the video cites: https://www.environmentandsociety.org/perspectives/2017/4/article/taking-space-men-masculinity-and-student-climate-movement

Petromasculinity is a well documented phenomena and when paired with the male tendency to dominate discussions and consolidate power in hierarchies (both are covered in the video in the form of studies wherein climate oriented groups are completely derailed by their male participants apparent need to talk the most and shut down group based discussion) we see a problem that is salient and familiar but applied to a crisis where the stakes could not be higher. For the men in this thread who are unwilling to even WATCH the video let alone consider the merits of its arguments, it is very likely that you are actively the problem, because the same tendencies that inspire that action are also used to silence voices that can be instrumental in actual change.

As an example. This is the sort of post I’m talking about: https://tech.lgbt/@spaduf/110941439731236455

@bookstodon Not sure if this is anybody’s cup of tea but there’s a new Lemmy instance dedicated to books and writing over at: https://literature.cafe

The best part is you can participate from your existing fediverse account. Communities on Lemmy can be followed like users and have similar functionality to a.gup.pe groups!

Try following @fiction as an example but remember that federation doesn’t backfill.

More communities can be found here: https://literature.cafe/communities

Already sitting at about 8 boosts and several favorites from some folks with a fairly large follower count. That means potentially thousands of eyes. I went ahead and put together a dedicated user as I think that may be more appropriate than spam posting Lemmy communities/instances on my personal account. Not sure when I’ll have time to flesh it out and make it active but I’ve already got a list of communities/instances and what groups I think would be interested in them. Find it here:
https://mastodon.social/@lemmy_for_mastodon

The Lemmy devs honestly probably need a significant change in priorities or even a fork. They also seem to be ignoring relatively simple performance fixes that would have huge effects on the cost of instance hosting. If you think about it 60k users really shouldn’t cost that much to host. See @RoundSparrow’s thread about it here: https://lemmy.ml/comment/2971578

What’s the alternative? It honestly seems like a worthwhile way to do it for me. I really think there’s only value in following niche communities from Mastodon. Discourse like that found on politics and news is pretty plentiful (and often higher quality) on Mastodon as is, but the gardening communities make up an important part of my Mastodon feed.

Very true. Following hashtags is a pretty essential feature.

Groups boost posts from all users that mention them. https://a.gup.pe/ is one implementation of groups with mastodon (and other federated microblogging platforms) in mind, but lemmy communities actually work the same way when followed from mastodon. I believe other fediverse platforms implement groups in similar ways under the hood. This means that everything is more or less interoperable between platforms.

EDIT: Try it yourself! Follow technology@lemmy.world from Mastodon to see what I mean. Although I don’t know that I would stay a follower of a community that large unless I wanted significant impacts on my feed. A smaller, potentially more useful, addition to your feed are things like gardening communities.

Those are actually not groups. Groups boost posts from all users that mention them. https://a.gup.pe/ is one implementation of groups with mastodon in mind, but lemmy communities actually work the same way when followed from mastodon. I believe other fediverse platforms implement groups in similar ways under the hood. This means that everything is more or less interoperable between platforms.

Not a great look here overall. Was definitely hoping they would take a little bit more accountability. The solution seems simple. Spend less money on egregiously expensive equipment and spend more money on making sure things are accurate before they go out the door.

The way to solve this is still largely through more focus on the provided context as the space of “facts” from which to operate. This combined with well thought out domain-specific context engines should still get the average user an absolutely enormous amount of utility. All that said I am not sure if OpenAI’s business model will get us that sort of application of the technology. I am looking forward to improvements in the open source space as I think advancement there is necessary for further development of the technology.

I think people are understandably wary of anything that purports to espouse stoic philosophy, but this is a fairly historical approach that has a lot to say about the way stoicism can cause harm in the modern world. The title doesn’t necessarily reflect that.

I see posts on the daily talking about better sort options than hot. I think it is you who is less familiar with the diversity of the fediverse. Remember, my original comment was:

Everybody’s subscribe page is different

Do you know then that hot is still pretty broken?

Bro you’re on kbin. How do you know how or why people do things on Lemmy?

Fuck you’re right.

Tags with mods having tag powers feels like the best option long term. Any sorting system can be applied without worrying about compatibility.

Everybody’s subscribe page is different. It will get bumped in active and new comments on Lemmy as I understand them. This feels like the intended use case for those sorts.

Feels pretty exploitative. Hope it goes away without karma as an incentive.