ElTacoEsMiPastor

wdym?

Perhaps «monitoring» was too strong of a word…

someone would eventually notice and complain.

I’ll rephrase: if a layperson wanted to check if an instance is not following through, how could they confirm it?

Is this for an online community like Lemmy, or more oriented towards fixing the credit institutions?

in any case, a credibility metric would soon turn into a goal to achieve ^(karmafarming says what?)^

A metric ceases to be useful when it becomes a goal.

( thanks! do you happen to know other instances that have downvotes disabled? up until know, i just knew of BeeHaw. Choosing between an upvote or engaging on conversation is more enticing when you can’t just give a thumbs down and leave the room )

10^^{10^10}

How to monitor which instances ignored the request?

at that point I start recycling them, and go back to parenthesis.

so when bp = 300x - 3, this:

4( 4[ 4{ 15bp + 10 } - 375 ] - 2250 ) - 15000

would turn to

4( 4[ 4{ 15( 300x - 3) + 10 } - 375 ] - 2250 ) - 15000

perhaps not the best, but I rather stick to conventional symbols rather than using… idk, question marks? that’d be funny as hell, though

just picture it:

4© 4« 4¿ 15bp + 10 ? - 375 » - 2250 🄯 - 15000

mind expanding on what these solve?

The fact that much of the project is discussed over Discord should be damning enough…

Don’t you think is damning that someone’s concern of privacy is handwaved because the data was “volunteered, not collected” ?

And, as a user, many of the AI features are limited at best and factually incorrect at worst. I would only salvage FastGPT and Quick Answer; they summarize the first 4 or 5 relevant links and contrasting views (even if it bases the whole search on a single Reddit comment from 2017).

Funnily enough the Universal Summarizer and Discuss Docs are the least reliable.

All in all, I am conflicted because it seemed like a pristine service and it’s getting clouded with time.