No, instead I just had a dream of fighting online poker betting spammer on Android.SE with 2-layer shortened links that lead to domain name samyang... the dream was so clear, it didn't make any sense.
For example, a link [link name][grover1996database] in the post.
[grover1996database]: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9605043 "Lov K. Grover, ‘A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search’, arXiv:quant-ph/9605043, preprint of paper in Proceedings of the 28th ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computation, ACM STOC 1996, pp. 212–219."
Tor supports all sorts of illegal activity, including one you don't support, especially piracy; which deprives your favorite artists of their paycheck.
Any torrent site that recommends Tor has gotta be malicious. Tor doesn't work with UDP whereas torrents use UDP, so torrents bypass Tor and expose your IP.
Like 0.0001% of it is. The "dark web" is pretty much all myth. In reality it's just a couple sites that end in .onion and which have nothing exciting on them.
It's massively overhyped in the media and on YouTube.
> Browsing deep web without NordVPN is not safe. If you think you are using Tor Browser, you are safe. No you are not.
hah
It's just a scam site.
Everything it links to (each one I saw at least) has got to be a scam.
Sadly the "dark web" is 99.9% scams, 0.01% legit stuff. So many people believe there's some deep underbelly of the internet there that scammers have a field day.
I'm sure some are, but most of them are actually copy pastes of previous ones using the same website template, but a different name, all run by the same guy.
Many of them have the same spelling/grammar/idiom idiosyncrasies. :P
Pretty much the only thing the "dark web" has is a bit of child porn here and there, a couple of crappy sites selling low-quality drugs, random blogs, and a lot of scams.
Here you go, 36 million results: California weed store - obviously you'll find some false hits, but you can clearly see that some have a nice store that you can walk in and show ID (if you're under 25). Entirely legal.
That's okay. Ah... blegh. Lemme try and sneak in an edit... Problem is I don't have a spam mask so I need to pick a moment when my coworker isn't looking ;)
The pile-on of votes here is just absurd, unwarranted and unrepresentative of any kind of valuation of the person who simply wanted to offer a suggestion. Did this really need to be driven down to -30? This was an absolutely horrible thing to do to someone and everyone that participated should feel the need for emotional development. — Tim Post ♦1 min ago
As far as answers on main is concerned -5 is low quality and -30 is too. The only thing -30 indicates to me with any sort of regularity is that there was some attached meta drama
@fbueckert This is just hyperbole. I'm calling out a massive unwarranted pile on that resulted in someone feeling terrible for just trying to participate.
If you wanna call that "demonizing", I have a link to a form where you can request account deletion.
If you look towards the secondary goal of downvotes (being a prompt for posters to examine their post and learn for future posts) then going too hard is more detriment then positive. This is strictly true for feature requests, I feel.
-5 does "we don't want this" just fine, as does an upvoted answer saying no. Even if not meant that way, -30 makes people who don't have a thick skin or aren't so familiar with voting culture here feel like it's meant as "go away"
Mind, I know my opinion is in the minority here but I think voting on meta needs an overhaul and maybe different categories of posts need to be treated differently
I'm ... really not sure why that question got downvoted... it's a discussion and it makes a reasonable point about our system text being a bit too terse. We don't need to protect and preserve the system the way it is like it's in a bubble... things can and should change and improve. That's OK. Was their suggested text perfect? No... but ... it's still a worthy discussion.
Harkening back to the post of mine I linked it's a pattern I observe over and over and over. Someone makes a FR or a thread or whatever thinking meta can help them or they can participate and get a massively downvoted post out of it with a dozen people telling them why they're wrong and/or outside site norms. All of those aren'T strictly speaking wrong observations but it does not make the person likely to come back or give meta another chance
Even having 250+ answers on MSO and 17k rep on MSE I find myself with a bit of fear every time I hit the post button because meta is a fickle beast and requires specific phrasing and tone to not get ton-of-brick'd. My 2cents
@Catija There's a huge sentiment I've seen that people don't find those discussions useful, and I can well imagine people felt that way especially while the suggested rewordings where still there... I wonder even how many people actually saw the discussion tag on a question that looked kinda feature requesting-y...
SE probably has empirical research how system message wordings affect outcomes. If there's an improvement there, go for it. If you can make posts better and users happier by changing a message or close reason, why would you be against it? It's at least worth discussing
@TimPost so limit the score, e.g. don't let users downvote when the post is already at -8. Or -5. I'm totally against this feature, but looks like that's where SE is headed anyway.
Good to know that meta participation and actively wanting to improve quality is now being mean. You can see exactly why people downvoted, Tim. It's literally in a comment.
@Tinkeringbell If they don't find the discussions useful... then just pass them by? They're extremely useful to us and when they're downvoted below -8, they're really easy for us to miss.
Well, the fact that the post is now anonimized tell something though, though I believe the OP is also active on MSO (which I put a comment on cross-site dupe)
@Magisch That's definitely true, and something that needs working on... But Tim has a point, the question already reached -doubledigits on the first day. There's no need to drive in the disagreement or discontent days after... It's also very discouraging for someone to see each time they open SE
@fbueckert How about a much more highly-voted one:
I think the suggestions here are a bit too conversational for system messages but that doesn't mean the current phrasing can't be improved. It's also worth remembering that system messages like close reasons are network wide and can't be customized, so making them overly descriptive may cause problems... they need to be kinda bland but still helpful. — Catija ♦May 9 at 15:28
@Catija That's true. But in the same way voting up/down when done correctly can show what kinds of discussion the community wants you all to pay attention to, and that's hopefully important in some way to SE too
Not every comment that disagrees with meta norms is evidence the network is going down the drain and evidence of a niceness over content agenda
It reads fairly innocously to me. I can for instance picture someone reading that and going "Okay, I should probably re-think making -31 out of that -30 out of reflex" without reading some sort of malice into it
@ShadowWizard We're going to test a few options. We want folks to be able to say "THAT IDEA WOULD MELT THE UNIVERSE NOOOOO" but we can't do it at the expense of people's dignity.
I can't functionally (or programmatically) tell the difference between something that's -5 or -30 except that the latter likely got visited by more people with downvote privileges
Finally, I believe we previously had already the same discussion about how "unwelcoming" the system message like, like those cold, emotionless, compiler message
@TimPost well, in any form, expect more than a few users to leave SE as result, as I can see at least part of @fbueckert point of view. The part I see and also feel bad about is that it's a way to "silence" users and block them from expressing their opinion. (i.e. downvote means "I don't agree with this" so not being able to downvote means you can't express your opinion anymore.)
The "Do I really care about this enough to have an opinion?" bar is way too low if you can just click a vote. You're more burning through a queue of things than actually expressing an opinion on stuff you care about.
outside of telling people they should have searched for a dupe which considering meta and the utility of search is a tall order sometimes they're not that useful
If that bar, to be a stakeholder made you write a paragraph or two, or find some other paragraphs you could upvote that mostly said what you feel, then that's different.
But right now there's nothing stopping anyone from just filtering feature requests and downvoting every single one in succession, and some people actually do that. The system is broken.
We really like meming on all the people who come to meta and dont search and make bad suggestions but the truth is "do your research" on meta is a bit harder then you'd think as a regular
We said the platform isn't for discussion back in the days when we had uservoice. We said it's just too gamified in all the wrong ways to be put to subjective use like that. And then we did exactly that and said cmon get meta it's perfect for subjective use.
For instance, having "We should foo the bar" downvoted to -30 is less useful then having "No because then the baz would also be foo'd" at +30 because then you could look at that and go "If we could find a way to avoid fooing the baz this could work" instead of "damn, the community hates this"
And then, like so many other things, we never revisited it to check and see if it was still meeting our goals. Hell, back then, we didn't even have goals.
But our main engagement platform is driving away 100 people for every 1 that it attracts, and those are seriously older numbers, it's likely worse now.
@TimPost I still find it a bit harsh to tell people that are currently working with a broken system that they need emotional development though :/ As you just saw, it only moves anger/disappointment from one person to others...
@TimPost Yep. It's been a long time complaint... we had a great platform for objective content and then squashed it into meta without making any real changes to address the subjectivity. It needs ... something different.
But if we poke at it, it starts to bloom again - people will fight tooth and nail saying they have the right to downvote whatever they want and other people just need to get a thicker skin. That's .. emotional immaturity and I'm going to call it as I see it.
This discussion led me to think of a grand idea... low chance it will become something worthy of sharing, but if it will happen, I'll post a feature request. (6-8 days ;))
Hopefully by then downvotes will be limited, so it won't break some negative record. :P
@TimPost Perhaps. Of course people should not think of it as a right to downvote whatever just because they feel like it, but the system is also still sending a message that you've been granted a privilege to downvote, and some sense of duty to use it to express your opinion of a post. And I think most people in here that got kinda mad at your first comment revision did not belong to the first group, but honestly thought they were doing the second.
@Alex That's not going to help. The problem with this post was that days after it was posted, and basically off the front page, people still found it, and thought it necessary to hammer another nail in the coffin. To the point that the post is now dissociated. That says something about feelings getting hurt, and is something that can certainly require a bit more careful thought about how to prevent in the future
@Tinkeringbell What post are we talking about? (Yeah, I probably shouldn't just jump in the middle of a conversation with my brilliant ideas without knowing what you're talking about.)
