One of the most salient and annoying sludges I ever experienced was doordash support. There was an issue with my account where the credits they gave me for a failed delivery somehow broke the ability for it to process payment (the total credits exceeded the cost of any reasonable single meal). No amount of adding different cards would fix it. There is a second line of service which supports via email, but they do not keep on the same ticket, it goes back to an inbox which multiple people see and every single reply was from a different support person. In addition to changing the support person each reply, they are clearly incentivized to reply quickly, rather than thoroughly. I say this because I would get the same questions, for which my reply would be “please see the full email chain which is included, this question was asked by <representative> and the answer is in the reply”. I got stuck in an endless loop of this before I decided to just entirely give up on the app. There is no number you can call, there is no way to get a person who will read through the entire email to understand the problem and troubleshooting steps taken. It was hostile by design, and designed to make you go away.

314m what a joke! Still, good to see them lose this court case

LMAO criminalizing disinformation, yeah right

You believe that a police officer, who is doing public actions, in a public role, should be given privacy while performing public actions? Say more

Even if an officer’s name and badge number were not public (which would be weird, because both of these are a part of a police officer’s uniform), what is the concern about a tool which provides these?

I would love to hear what has you concerned about a tool which provides a piece of information which is, by law (California Penal Code Section 830.10), supposed to be accessible to all individuals interacting with the officer - their name and/or badge number.

I appreciate the picture they included, as it is not flattering in any way, which is the least of what he deserves in response to his intolerance.

In what world is that even a plausible outcome of this news? This feels non-sequitur by its pure absurdity. If they had a list of 1000 things they can do with this database, that would not even be on the list.

I understand you are talking about something which either interests you or is a cause you care about, but we’re talking about monumental governmental surveillance by a president many scholars are calling a fascist. This is not the time nor the place to discuss such matters and trying to have that conversation could easily be read as dismissing the plentiful and obvious concerns around privacy and safety of the American public.

Thank you for linking this, this looks amazing! I’m going to see if we can get it incorporated on our dashboards at work.

Already not a fan of Palantir, this is pretty bad news

This is covered under our only rule. Being explicit about any single bad behavior implies that we need to explicitly call out every possible not nice behavior and that is against the spirit of Beehaw. See the spirit of the rules and other documentation for more information on how we moderate. Keep reporting and we will keep removing.

free chewy

wokepedia lmao what’s wrong with the world

Happy to have a conversation if you feel something was inappropriately removed. Our current workflow is to run questionable comments by a group with all moderators and admins before taking action. Nobody is perfect however, and we do occasionally make mistakes.

I’m glad to see a lot of different people trying different models. I don’t think microblogging really has the capability of being nontoxic, but who knows? Maybe they’ll succeed where everyone else has failed. I certainly know we’re trying to have nontoxic social media around here, and we have plenty of issues at a much smaller scale.

I understand why you might be upset based on how they made a rather sweeping statement about the comments without addressing any content. When they said “a bunch of sanctimonious people with too much appreciation for their own thoughts and a lack of any semblance of basic behaviour” it might strike many as an attack on the user base, but I’m choosing to interpret it through the lens of simply being upset at people who are not nice. I could be wrong, and perhaps @[email protected] can elaborate on exactly who and what they were talking about.

Regardless, let’s try our best to treat them in good faith. Don’t let your own biases shape how you interpret people or their language. Please try to ask clarifying questions first before jumping to the assumption that they are a right wing troll.

Hey fam, starting with this reply its pretty clear you’re not engaging in good faith - this statement is fundamentally accusatory. It’s unsurprising that other folks viewed this as an attack. Please chill out, treat users with good faith, and do your best to avoid escalating things - you should gut check your own comments and ask yourself “how will others view this? Is this helpful?” and if the answer is no, rewrite your comment or don’t reply.

not wrong

That’s really not how NIH grants work

I remember seeing a study once which showed regret about gender transition at about 6%.

Meta-analyses almost always put the figure at closer to 1%. It is one of the least regretted things that humans do. To provide a comparison figure, education regret tends to hover closer to 40% and parenting at 10%.