The single agent pulling regularly 10k records, which nobody will ever use, is worse than the 10k agents coming from the same source, and using the same cache, they fill when doing a targeted request. But even worse are 10k agents from 10k different sources, scraping 10k sites each, of which 9999 pages are not relevant for their request.
At the end it's all about the impact on the servers, and those can be optimized, but this does not seem to happen at the moment at large. So in that regard, centralizing usage and honouring the rules is a good step, and the rest are details to figure out on the way.
2020 was a single accidental case as the result of a poor system. Many people even from within the system on all levels agreed something went wrong and apologized. Today's situation is different, as the whole system is weaponized on purpose from one specific layer/group against the other layers/groups of the system. It's an internal conflict within the system itself, and a prime-example for justifying a civil war. And at the time Trump was still on the leash of his own adminstration.
> Is it radicalised to want even a basic premise of neutrality in an encyclopedia?
Facts are not neutral or "balanced".
And your whole phrasing smells of someone who doesn't want to be challenged with facts which are against you worldview, which is pretty much against the whole purpose of Wikipedia.
> Despite not being particularly political, even I raise an eyebrow when an article opens with "____ is a <negative label>, <negative label>, <negative label> known for <controversial statement>"
Without giving the actual example, there seems nothing wrong with this in general. Could be important, could be overrated. But at least I assume it's true, because wrong claims would be a valid problem.
That is exactly how I understand it at the moment. And depending on the material, it would be a somewhat valid complaint, if the report included the material without prior warning. Though, not valid enough to call CoC on this, IMHO.
It would only be at all valid if it was forwarded to employees who weren’t in a customer facing role.
Saying that you’re required to give a content warning to an account manager for material related to your business relationship puts the burden of responsibility onto the victim. Dealing with the psychological impact is the responsibility of their employer, not the customer.
No, even in a customer-facing role, you won't have to put up with every s**. I mean, it's a business for electronics, not a porn-shop or moderation for explicit material at some social media-platform. There should be a line on what they have to tolerate.
From the little we know the "material" in question would be photoshops made to harass Limor, made by someone at sparkfun. So it would be weird for sparkfun to complain , given the content originated with one of their employees. (Allegedly)
This would mean admitting the allegations are 100% true and harming their business even more with the risk of losing it all in worst case. Now we can assume it's not as simple as SparkFun makes it. It's a dirty situation, but necessary, and justified if they are really a victim.
> but the post you are responding to is clearly looking for a public fight.
SparkFun started the war, AdaFruit seem to only defend here.
No bone in this fight, but in this day and age, when someone levels an accusation of unspecified "code of conduct violation", I automatically think "oh, geez another sex pest". And of course start reading because I can't resist tabloid gossip either.
Some amount of defense is appropriate just to clear the air. Maybe this has gone too far, but hey, we're all still reading. I don't even know what a Teensy is.
Most people don't care about mechanical keyboards, they just use whatever their employer provides, comes free with the PC, or is just the best deal on Amazon.
It's not popular in your bubble. Protest-music still exists, it sometimes even gains some attention, but they can't compete with all the big professional feelgood-products and the social-slop. And I assume, the platforms have now more political filters, making it even harder to spread. Political content seems to have significantly dried up on certain platforms, since the orange king reigns.
I'm curious how many deadly falls are the result of an ilness. Would having an heart attack in an unlucky moment skew the statistics? I guess they normally would not research the cause of death deeper if there is an obvious reason.
A good friend recently lost her dad to a fall in his back yard. Technically it was a second or third stroke in the past few years, but this time he also fell backwards onto a cement stepping stone in his backyard.
So you're correct that these things can often be related.
Another friend has never had a fainting spell in his life. But three years ago, fainted luckily forward I guess, and knocked out a tooth.
At the end it's all about the impact on the servers, and those can be optimized, but this does not seem to happen at the moment at large. So in that regard, centralizing usage and honouring the rules is a good step, and the rest are details to figure out on the way.
reply