I’ve been on Reddit for decades too, and I disagree with you.
Assuming that a post wasn’t made and made visible because it has key words that were censored isn’t based on logic; you’re guessing.
I type fast enough that to a 72 year old it might look like magic or a bot.
I don’t have any evidence either way as far as who uses old.reddit to submit versus who doesn’t, and I don’t think there is any.
Why do you think you’re able to detect a bot by their Reddit comments? I strongly suspect you’re assuming low-effort, poorly-written comments are bots, when in reality they’re probably just dumb people.
I think the bot percentage is proportional to how big a subreddit is and how profitable influencing people browsing it is.
Niche community about how to proplift (stealing small cuttings to grow your own plants)? Zero or close to zero bots.
Crypto community with thousands of comments a day, where it’s all speculation that can’t be objectively disproven* so bots stick out like a sore thumb and tons of money flying around? You better believe the bots are all over that.
There’s no objective data to confirm or dispel your suspicion that there are zero few human Redditors (your hyperbole aside).
There’s definitely tons of bots posting and voting (and likely always has been), but I really doubt a large percentage of commenters are bots.
- A non-bot redditor
Sadly this is (very popular, according to comments here and on Reddit) copium. old.reddit.com visits are a rounding error, per the traffic stats of the normie subreddit I moderate:
Most people simply do not have the technical acumen and tenure on Reddit to know to type in that subdomain. As always, relevant XKCD (posted today on Lemmy, funnily enough):
Sadly this is (very popular, according to comments here and on Reddit) copium. old.reddit.com visits are a rounding error, per the traffic stats of the normie subreddit I moderate:
Most people simply do not have the technical acumen and tenure on Reddit to know to type in that subdomain. As always, relevant XKCD (posted today on Lemmy, funnily enough):
Yes, that is what it claims.
Turns out it’s not a Cloudflare issue, but a lemmy.world admin issue:
That’s not usually how it works.
It is apparently how it works for lemmy.world, as of at least this post from two years ago:
To those who didn’t click onward, the answer in that post is apparently 2 years (by implication of its post date)
Ironically it also invalidates the top comment in this thread claiming they aren’t concerned with VPNs, just specific VPN IPs that have been abused in the past.
Hot take because Line Must Go Up is being blamed on "For the Shareholders!" lately, but:
It’s not just publicly traded companies. Private companies have greedy C-suites too.
At a guess, such cooperation would undermine Lenovo’s profit margin and would thus be a non-starter for them.
Enter government regulation, to pinch corporations by the ear and drag them to doing what’s right for society.
Apologies - didn’t realize I was talking to someone who has bouts of nihilism mixed in with their political activism like rocks in a salad.
Enjoy the block!
Yeah, Invidious went down due to YouTube breaking their API yesterday and apparently they’re still working to get it back up.
You can either plug that ?v= code into your YouTube, plug it into another YouTube alternative, or patiently wait until Invidious comes back up.
Something I’ve noticed is that people seem to think it counts for “googling” something, to rely on the LLM summary in a Google search.
The handful of times I’ve called someone out they’ve pitched a fit for me pointing it out as if there’s no difference.
True, but your implication that I’m not doing enough while I’m sitting here complaining is just as well-served to the mirror.
I’m not aware of any definition of “less dangerous” that involves the more dangerous job having less deaths and injuries than the less dangerous job.
I personally think “likelihood of being attacked” and “ability to defend themselves” should also be included in the definition we’re working with. Like if Person A is attacked 5 times a day and defends against them without injury 4/5 times, but Person B is attacked 3 times a day and is not trained or equipped to defend themselves so they’re hurt 3 times a day, which person is in the more “dangerous” position?
Want to slow your roll and figure out if you’re talking to the same person before going off?
Fair enough, I didn’t (and routinely don’t) check usernames before responding. Sounds exhausting. Pedantry accepted though; feel free to redact the part of that comment that involves my asking if you realized you were wrong and replace it with something about you realizing they were wrong. Better? You ready to respond to my pointing out that you’re doing a Red Herring now, or is there some other pedantic thing you want to focus on to distract from the broad strokes of you screwing up?
Not at all. If your argument is that cops should get to have guns and shoot people because their job is dangerous, so should pizza delivery drivers, who are more likely to get assaulted than cops.
Yep, I also believe delivery drivers should be allowed to carry a gun. Same with taxi cab drivers and other people who are more likely to be (successfully) attacked and hurt or killed than cops are.
See how using a straw-man argument can make for an awkward situation where you fleshing out your attack into a(n implied) question about their real position can make you look like a fool?
If I remember correctly the first time I looked at the marketing materials when I went to their official website and they advertised it to me as an alternative for the free version I was trying, they basically offer(ed) a few features I didn’t care about:
The very latest model, i.e. this week instead of this year
Saving your conversations and using that to tailor the LLM to you
The first was not worth $10/month or whatever it was, and the second was something I actively did not want.
I have a sneaking suspicion that people value the service for its ability to mimic professional human writing, which they are otherwise incapable of, and they don’t really care that it’s not very accurate.
But it’s hard for people to admit, “Yes, I’m an adult who writes at a 3rd grade level,” so they pretend it’s useful for other reasons.
You’re asserting you know what isn’t posted to Reddit and why, based on a hunch, citing your age.
I don’t think that’s a logical position, no.