• 4 Posts
  • 167 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 25th, 2023

help-circle
  • Offering a slight damper / correction:

    This is about two things (design and ownership), which are correlated, but not identical.

    Malicious design can be things like:

    • Algorithms to keep people engaged
    • UIs to confuse users (luring them to purchases, or making ‘cancel’ hard to access)
    • Using intermediate currencies to make it harder to assert value

    Obviously, these patterns and practices can also be applied to a FOSS instance you own. There is less incentive to do so if the profit motive is removed - which makes a huge difference.

    These design patterns are fundamentally about making user numbers go up. Attract more users, keep them on your platform longer, make them leave less. And a portion of user guidance mixed in. None of that is inherently evil, to some degree even desireable, and to some extent unavoidable to offer a functional service.

    Some users may expect a feed like lemmy to browse indefinitely, since they find it inconvenient to have to click to go to the ‘next page’. And because they got used to this feature elsewhere. Others already see this as a dark pattern.

    I just wanted to highlight how some of the malicious stuff may still be present in the fediverse, without any company involved. Here, we’re kind of in charge on both sides: Each is responsible for their own user agency (like controlling your online hours, or what sites you visit), and collectively to decide what user experience we want to shape (which might include controverse patterns).

    I spent way too many words on this. Mostly I agree with you! And overall, users will encounter far less malicious patterns on FOSS.

    [Edit: Formatting]



  • Hehe, good point.

    people need to read more code, play around with it, break it and fix it to become better programmers.

    I think AI bots can help with that. It’s easier now to play around with code which you could not write by yourself, and quickly explore different approaches. And while you might shy away from asking your colleagues a noob question, ChatGPT will happily elaborate.

    In the end, it’s just one more tool in the box. We need to learn when and how to use it wisely.




  • An (intuitively) working search would be a great step ahead. It should find and show things if they exist, and only show no results if they do not. That a plethora of external tools exist to meet these basic needs shows both how much this is needed, and how much it is broken.

    I also feel I have more luck finding communities if searching for ‘all’, instead of ‘communities’. Don’t make me add cryptic chars to my search to make it work. Do that for me in the background if necessary.

    It’s been long since I’ve been using it, but iirc, it’s impossible or painful to search for a specific community in your subscribed list.


  • One is multiple parallel goals. Makes it hard to stop playing, since there’s always something you just want to finish or do “quickly”.

    Say you want to build a house. Chop some trees, make some walls. Oh, need glass for windows. Shovel some sand, make more furnaces, dig a room to put them in - oh, there’s a cave with shiny stuff! Quickly explore a bit. Misstep, fall, zombies, dead. You had not placed a bed yet, so gotta run. Night falls. Dodge spiders and skeletons. Trouble finding new house. There it is! Venture into the cave again to recover your lost equipment. As you come up, a creeper awaitsssss you …

    Another mechanism is luck. The world is procedurally generated, and you can craft and create almost anything anywhere. Except for a few things, like spawners. I once was lucky to have two skeleton spawners right next to each other, not far from the surface. In total, I probably spent hours in later worlds to find a similar thing.

    The social aspect can also support that you play the game longer or more than you actually would like. Do I lose my “friends” when I stop playing their game?

    I don’t think Minecraft does these things in any way maliciously, it’s just a great game. But nevertheless, it has a couple of mechanics which can make it addictive and problematic.



  • You can use more debug outputs (log(…)) to narrow it down. Challenge your assumptions! If necessary, check line by line if all the variables still behave as expected. Or use a debugger if available/familiar.

    This takes a few minutes tops and guarantees you to find at which line the actual behaviour diverts from your expectations. Then, you can make a more precise search. But usually the solution is obvious once you have found the precise cause.





  • Exactly this. It’s often about finding the right balance between technically optimal, and socially feasible (lacking the right phrase here).

    The nerds brimming with technical expertise often neglect the second point.

    Oh - wow! I was about to complain about how https://join-lemmy.org/ is a shining bad example in this regard, talking about server stuff right away and hiding how Lemmy actually looks until page 3, but apparently they changed that and improved it drastically. Cool, good job!

    Anyways.

    For collaborative projects especially, it is important to strike a balance between tech and social aspects. Making poor tech choices will put people off. But making your project less accessible will also result in less people joining. It’s crucial to find a good balance here. For many coming from the tech side, this usually means making far more concessions to the social side than intuitively feels right.


  • That’s already pretty cool! It surely does generate very random numbers. I still think you can take it a step – or a random number of steps, hah! – further by repeating the process a random number of times! Maybe this way we can reach maximum randomness. Probably need to reroll the number until it’s big enough for that.

    I would also check if the result is 4. If it’s 4, it should be discarded. 4 is not an actual random number but a joke random number from a comic.



  • I find the plateau quite puzzling (lemmy.world, but the total looks very similar):

    There was quite a steep increase, and then it suddenly stopped.

    I would rather expect it to slow down, than to stop that abruptly.

    We’re looking at a fairly large group of people making a decision to create an account on Lemmy. There are plenty of reasons to expect it to be fuzzy. Even if they all responded to one particular event in time, some would have done so immediately, others the next day, few more even later.