Even if you often try to make that person feel understood and empowered to express their views, everyone’s needs are different. For example, if they tend to feel inadequate or are self-conscious about their achievements/intelligence/etc., you may need to go the extra mile here.

Try to identify all the positive and negative interactions with them (i.e., those in which they get the impression that they are right versus those in which they don’t) and make sure that positive ones greatly outnumber negative ones. If you need, you can try to acknowledge more situations wherein their contribution to a conversation deserves praise, or even simply not point out their mistakes if the question at hand is not critical for you (easiest imo).

When a person says this, sometimes even if they do it in a positive tone, it’s usually a way to verbalize more concrete concerns that you should address. For example, they might feel that you are always dismissing their opinions, that you don’t listen to them in general, or they would simply like to get support when they express their views in a group so they get some recognition. In any case, they feel like you can do something to help but may not feel comfortable to express it or may not have fully identified it. If that person is important to you, you should be able to see what they want and take action.

Brilliant. That makes a lot of sense, especially the more concrete the goals are. I wish it were easier to achieve, maybe the theoretical frameworks for this will be a reality in a few decades… Your implementation at least seems more plausible.

Okay, my answer is pretty removed, but I’d say I’d like a system where decisions are made by submitting automated proofs of their optimality, either absolute or over all submitted proposals in a defined time frame. The conditions of optimality would be pre-defined in a Constitution, and non-provable facts would be accepted or rejected via a decentralized voting system that would keep multiple diff chains and penalize e.g. voting for facts that are later proven false via a submitted proof. The proof system would hold all powers, but would be able to delegate decisions to entities under proven rules, which would come faster but possibly be overriden.

Absolutely. But I don’t want to influence anything, just make the OP slightly happier and hopefully have a good read myself.

I tend to upvote everything, no matter how much I disagree. I don’t trust my own opinions or the authors’, all of them are flawed in some way.

Huh… Is this a reference to how all those nazi high ranks ended up within NATO governance? Otherwise I might be missing the point…

I’m a Marxist-Leninist, member of an organized group.

I believe countries try to shape and weaponize citizens’ opinions about other countries, so I refuse to defend or criticize them unless I can argue that doing so is beneficial to my ideas (i.e., not based on feelings or ethics). Thus, I’m neutral towards most countries and defend multipolarity.

I tend to doubt my ideas as much as I can.

I used to play Kenshi at 1-2 fps. Now I’ve got a better CPU so it’s not fun anymore…

Your concept of “failure” might not exactly fit everyone else’s, but I’m sure you can contribute to the conversation!

Can’t find anything about that over on GitHub, sorry…

Well, there are not many details to share anyway (registration is just username/password, e-mail is optional). And since everything is federated, they’d need to bring down all of Lemmy, which may not even be possible for them due to different instances being hosted in different countries.

I’ve had a great time on Lemmy since I joined over 2y ago. But well, can’t keep all the fun to ourselves, right? :) Now this place is all yours too. Welcome aboard!

Do you expect this is a reflection of how Reddit will handle relations with its investors?

Holy shit, they killed him right there. They have put the thread in “sort by new” mode and I bet it’s just to bury that bomb as deep as they can.

It’s okay, a few more days of frenzy and hopefully it’ll pay off :) And at least within Lemmy itself, people seem to be answering each other’s questions too; you guys can count on us.

Well, the good thing about Jerboa is that anyone can just make changes to it and send them to the devs, so now that more people are using Lemmy, it will improve really quickly!

Basically, RISCV itself is open source, but it’s just a specification. Actual processor designs implementing it are usually not open source.

Theoretically current RISCV boards are not fully open since the processor itself is not. That might or might not matter to you, but you can always use an FPGA board. Anyway, hmu for anything, it’s nice to help with projects as a community :)

You can accuse anyone of anything and start a trial, that’s how the justice system works.

The percentage of young men who think gender-related violence is not real has doubled in the last four years, it’s over 20% now. Plus a similar share believe feminism is detrimental to society.