this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2024
-16 points (23.3% liked)

.NET

1474 readers
1 users here now

Getting started

Useful resources

IDEs and code editors

Tools

Rules

Related communities

Wikipedia pages

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
-16
Add AI to Your .NET Apps Easily with Prompty - .NET Blog (devblogs.microsoft.com)
submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Is it self-centered if a lot of people do it, though?

Everyone can be self centered at the same time. Not sure why you think that wouldn't be possible.

Is voting “a self-centered” action, or a community one?

Depends on the voter.

My point is that it doesn’t matter why they do it. The platform allows it, so it’s fair game.

It hard to see why you expect that the "Admins" would be able to prevent anything they don't prefer so casually.

It would be nice if the software allowed for many more things but it is limited, development is slow, and prioritizes what they get funding to work on. If you look at the issues list, you'll see that there are many desired changes, so the current release is not how the developers intend it to function.

admins should have an option to disable voting from people who are (1) browsing All and (2) not subscribed.

I would really like this feature, but it doesn't exist. If I were an admin a lemmy instance, I would not consider it fair game to downvote a post on a community that you're not subscribed to. It would be a lot of work to enforce that. Just like there's a lot of work to reduce SPAM. I wouldn't call SPAM fair game because the developers haven't created a perfect SPAM filter (currently, they don't have one at all). I would consider SPAM self centered even if many people do it.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Everyone can be self centered at the same time. Not sure why you think that wouldn’t be possible.

I guess you're right.

It hard to see why you expect that the “Admins” would be able to prevent anything they don’t prefer so casually.

Well, think harder. They're admins, not peasants.

It would be nice if the software allowed for many more things but it is limited, development is slow, and prioritizes what they get funding to work on.

That's a red-herring.

If you look at the issues list, you’ll see that there are many desired changes, so the current release is not how the developers intend it to function.

But then, this is a good idea, and I'll do this.

If I were an admin a lemmy instance, I would not consider it fair game to downvote a post on a community that you’re not subscribed to.

But then, there would be admins who would be okay with it. As long as the platform allows it, it's fair game. Unless admins use a workaround, like banning the users who do this - but they're not doing this either, are they?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Well, think harder.

You first.

I guess that's the end of any sort of productive discussion from your end.

Also, you seem to be confused about what a red herring is.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

Also, you seem to be confused about what a red herring is.

Do enlighten me.