pjhenry1216

You realize you are also being abusive with your terminology and spreading of really poor stereotypes? You’ve also been condescending. You also tried to say explicitly something was only about you while trying to use that to describe literally other people? You also then continued to say your definition is yours alone but then tried to use it as a way to convey meaning to a general audience?

Abusive language isn’t necessarily poor communication. There is nothing ironic there. It doesn’t fit the definition of the word at all.

You’ve been both offensive and poor at communicating though.

If I need to say it, yes, I am, and you’re a shitty person for even asking.

I’m done. And you’re terrible and should be ashamed.

feel free to identify yourself

Fuck that. No one should have to share their anything even remotely shared to their mental health for some sort of odd gatekeeping purposes.

I gave my opinion. You are a terrible communicator and using a condition in a way that is offensive and then trying to force people to put themselves when they may not want to. So fuck that even more. That’s shameful behavior. If you want to be offensive and communicate poorly, so be it. That’s my opinion. And so be it. If you can justify forcing people to do things and if you can justify using derogatory statements to describe other people, which you literally did, that’s on you. We’re done here.

You literally just defeated your own argument. You just made the claim its your own personal definition and therefore would need to be described every single time you use it otherwise you would have a failure of communication.

Autism is different for everyone and that’s why it’s terrible to use it to describe the details of something.

And you aren’t describing your own experience. You are describing a government system. If you are admitting it’s extremely defined and only works in your head and not whoever you’re talking to, you will have a failure to communicate.

Edit: actually, that folks disagreed with you enough to comment is more a sign of that failure than any explanation I can provide. And you still provided it as a way to describe other autistics despite claiming otherwise.

This is a very poor understanding of autism. You’ve taken such a small sliver that this comparison is going to not only offend a lot of people but also confuse a lot of people. The given properties you’re invoking are such a small subset of autism and not even that widespread and hell, it ignores the core reasoning behind some. Brutal honesty is often tied with inability to be empathetic. You’re doing yourself a disservice using autism as your “model” here.

Looking into it, I can see some issues with the idea (I don’t understand how it wouldn’t fall pretty to the tragedy of the commons), plus I definitely don’t think Sanders would fit into there. I don’t see any of his proclaimed positions fitting into any definition of left-libertarian. Plus I don’t see how left-libertarian wouldn’t fall prey to the same problem we have with capitalism now, despite being an anti-capitalist notion. It’s strong sense of individual ownership of anything other than natural resources seems at odds with a lot of other socialist concepts. I will caveat all of this with saying I have a very limited understanding of left-libertarianism, but just reading any given definition just seems to give rise to very clear contradictions. I feel like either it is problematic or no one is really sharing good definitions of it.

Libertarian cannot work without socialism essentially. You cannot have a free market where the worker doesn’t own the means of production. Power will always pool to select individuals and those who have collected power have shown no remotely reliable track record to serve humanity’s best interest over their own. In fact, it’s regularly shown the exact opposite. Libertarianism is just an excuse to act against the good of society for your own benefit and fuck anyone you step on along the way. I’ve never heard a defense of libertarianism that is actually good for society. It’s basically just dressing up the belief you can’t be forced to do good, so you can’t get in trouble if you do bad.

Generally it’s more about the interaction. If the user views it as interacting with the viewport, it tends to be inverted. If the user views the interaction as interacting with the scroll bar, it’s “natural”. Scroll wheel is the only odd one out. However it was introduced prior to mousepads supporting gestures. So it basically started as an extension of the scroll bar interaction, but as mousepads introduced the concept of interacting with the viewport, scroll wheels were given the option to respond either way based on user preference.

It doesn’t come across insulting at all. It comes across as naive.

Like, it literally has a Wikipedia page and doesn’t mention anything else.

I mean, literally isn’t used to mean just figuratively. It’s actually an exaggeration to mean that the concept is so strong that it literally triggered the figurative comparison for real. Context is key there. And context is important. That’s the great thing about that though is you rarely need extra information to show which definition you mean. If I said it’s so hot outside that I’m literally on fire, you don’t need to question the meaning.

But here? Let’s be honest. The word usage has exploded on Lemmy. They wanted so badly to use the term in the cool way. No one would have used the word that way before. No one uses its ‘literal’ definition now really. Because it’s generally not how humans in society have discussions. No one describes the enshitification of something as a clinical description. If it were used as a joke? Sure. But now it’s either someone so divorced from reality that they don’t even know how to communicate or it’s just folks who heard the word, thought it was cool, but didn’t really understand it. That’s all that is. I can’t believe folks are trying to defend the “evolution” of language on one hand by describing a loss of accuracy and clarity in language, but then on the ither hand defending it from some weird historical perspective. It’s honestly entertaining to see people come at this and argue with entirely contradictory points of view. “Words change meaning and this is it’s new meaning” vs “that’s been its meaning forever”. Like, let’s try to at least coordinate the defense of the person who wanted to sound cool. No one says “enshittified” in place of “it’ll go to shit” or “get fucked”. But instead you expect me to believe this is some ole-timey bastard saying, “sir, it will be enshittified.” Come on buddy. It’s weird you even thought all those words you spoke would sound insulting. Like you actually had a good point or something. See? That last bit there. That’s what something insulting sounds like.

Your ability to determine how another is feeling via words is lacking. I’m not fuming. I’m not even that angry. I just am having a discussion and you’re responding like you’re not even out of high school. Its just frustrating communication.

Grow up.

Except due to the new usage one now has to basically define it to give it the correct context. It’s lost its power to be used and immediately understood. If what you say is true, it cannot be used efficiently to why it was coined.

And pretending it’s not suddenly being used because of Doctorow is naive.

Except the language is weaker as we’ve lost the ability to transfer one idea easily because people like re-using the word because they think it makes them sound educated on the topic. It’s being used because of Doctorow, not because of any other reason. So I call bullshit on it just being grammatical.

So now we don’t have a word anymore to describe something that we used to have a word. And we already had words to describe what the person above was.

The language has lost use.

Except it means nothing in that usage. Some people ran with it. Others decided to not be ridiculous and just apply it without rhyme or reason. Outside the Fediverse, it’s nearly unknown. Inside the fediverse, when it’s misused, it’s usually in a very obvious and uncritical manner. It is still commonly used properly.

Don’t take the power away from words just because you literally like the word itself. It’s immature.

If you use it to apply to all unpopular corporate decisions, it’s no longer powerful and doesn’t have any meaning.

The general driving force is different though. It’s a process that involves devaluing a service by basically commoditizing two forces against each other. Simply dropping value-added features to save money is just the race to the bottom.

Dropping a feature is the equivalent of charging for extra BBQ sauce packets. It’s not the same driving force like Instagram where they play two forces against each other. Like the way Google has been going with shoving way too many ads in there. That is a different motivation because it’s valuing one customer at the expense of another. Something like dropping free service XYZ is just cutting costs.

The word is getting overplayed and it feels like everyone has the same word-a-day calendar and are now trying to use it as much as possible.

It’s more impactful and retains meaning if we keep it succinct instead of just the equivalent of “an unpopular decision that saves money to increase shareholder value”. It’s all about recognizing you are a product as well as a user. It’s that the services don’t have an incentive to serve you. Its just so much more meaningful as long as we don’t remove all of that meaning to just show we don’t like corporatism.

But their entirely different processes. One is exploiting one market vs the other. Here it wouldn’t necessarily be exploiting a market, but destroying value of a free service. If you’re worried about personal info being the exploitation, it’s going to be very limited and likely already in place. An account structure is usually more the first move toward monetizing the service directly and enabling the ability between free and premium services. That’s still shitty, but for entirely different reasons. So I just don’t like seeing the original word lose all meaning whatsoever beyond its root word. It basically guts it of all of its nuance and importance and just turns it into a noun form of taking something and making it shitty. We don’t need to do that.

If it has been done after school, they’d complain about police interrupting dinner. This was a no win situation. I guess they could have asked the parents to bring the kid in, but I don’t see why white glove service is required for an ugly crime like that.

Don’t threaten to kill people and you won’t be ‘shamed’ by getting arrested at school.

Can we stop the overuse and over-generalization of “enshitification” which Doctorow had given very explicit meaning to in regards to social networks? It does not simply mean commoditization which is not quite the same but almost synonymous with 'race to the bottom’s in regards of trying to increase revenue while simultaneously decreasing costs.

Edit: I’ll admit narrowing to “social networks” is a bit too narrow, but the point still stands that it’s for two way platforms where there are “two markets.” Phillips Hue does not have a two sided market.

They’d have to do best effort against charging devs for pirated copies.

Telemetry is also easily blocked. As a business, I’d trust that a lot less. It’s why many enterprise licenses are simply self reported. The punishment isn’t worth lying enough to make a difference.

Most companies would trust devs as the devs are not big enough to survive a legal fight they’d certainly lose with prejudice, meaning they’d pay court costs as well.

There is no way they’ll just make up a bunch of invoices for small developers. That would be too time consuming, plus they’d need to show reasonable effort in determining the invoice. It’s best to just let the devs do all the work with the fear that an audit can cost them so much more money than they’d save if they lied.