lvxferre

I agree with you that both things have their upsides; and frankly, I don't even think that we should be pandering to the immigration leftover wallowing in Reddit. Growth is good, but growth should never come at the expense of the community that you're trying to grow.

However I feel like those points help to explain why the "lol lmao" crowds hate this place.

Besides other factors mentioned in this thread, there's also

• selection bias: people with a positive view of Lemmy already migrated, so the leftover is bound to have more negative views
• older userbase: older people use language in a different way, talk about different topics, and dig into those topics in a different way. That often makes younger people throw a tantrum.
• group identity: for those "AS A SNOO" we're basically apostates.
• edit: personal drama between higher ups is more visible here than in Reddit.

Easier: n(13-n).

The userbase is small but stable.

For real. Companies being extra pushy with their product always makes me picture their decision makers saying:

"What do you mean, «we're being too pushy»? Those are customers! They are not human beings, nor deserve to be treated as such! This filth is stupid and un-human-like, it can't even follow simple orders like «consume our product»! Here we don't appeal to its reason, we smear advertisement on its snout until it needs to open the mouth to breath, and then we shove the product down its throat!"

Is this accurate? Probably not. But it does feel like this, specially when they're trying to force a product with limited use cases into everyone's throats, even after plenty potential customers said "eeew no". Such as machine text and image generation.

The insertion of an all knowing checker who could have written it himself anyway

The checker does make all the difference, but he doesn't need to be able to write it by himself. It could be even a brainless process, such as natural selection.

I think the point is less about any kind of route to Hamlet, and more about the absurdity of infinite tries in a finite space(time).

I know. It's just that creationists misuse that metaphor so often that I couldn't help but share my brainfart here.

Perhaps even worse: Wobblesticke, Jiggleweapone, stuff like this.

If we're considering even chimps "monkeys", there's already eight billion of them, I think that's enough.

I have a way to make it work.

Have the monkey write down a single character. Just one. 29/30 of the time, it won't be the same character as the first one in Shakespeare's complete works; discard that sheet of paper, then try again. 1/30 of the time the monkey will type out the right character; when they do it, keep that sheet of paper and make copies out of it.

Now, instead of giving a completely blank sheet to the monkey, give them one of those copies. And let them type the second character. If different from the actual second character in Shakespeare's works, discard that sheet and give him a new copy (with the right 1st char still there - the monkey did type it out!). Do this until the monkey types the correct second character. Keep that sheet with 2 correct chars, make copies out of it, and repeat the process for the third character.

And then the fourth, the fifth, so goes on.

Since swapping sheets all the time takes more time than letting the monkey go wild, let's increase the time per typed character (right or wrong), from 1 second to... let's say, 60 times more. A whole minute. And since the monkey will type junk 29/30 of the time, it'll take around 30min to type the right character.

It would take even longer, right? Well... not really. Shakespeare's complete works have around 5 million characters, so the process should take 5*10⁶ * 30min = 2.5 million hours, or 285 years.

But we could do it even better. This approach has a single monkey doing all the work; the paper has 200k of them. We could split Shakespeare's complete works into 200k strings of 25 chars each, and assign each string to a monkey. Each monkey would complete their assignment, on average, after 12h30min; some will take a bit longer, but now we aren't talking about the thermal death of the universe or even centuries, it'll take at most a few days.

Why am I sharing this? I'm not invalidating the paper, mind you, it's cool maths.

I've found this metaphor of monkeys typing Shakespeare quite a bit in my teen years, when I still arsed myself to discuss with creationists. You know, the sort of people who thinks that complex life can't appear due to random mutations, just like a monkey can't type the full works of Shakespeare.

Complex life is not the result of a single "big" mutation, like a monkey typing the full thing out of the blue; it involves selection and inheritance, as the sheets of paper being copied or discarded.

And just like assigning tasks to different monkeys, multiple mutations can pop up independently and get recombined. Not just among sexual beings; even bacteria can transmit genes horizontally.

Already back then (inb4 yes, I was a weird teen...) I developed the skeleton of this reasoning. Now I just plopped the numbers that the paper uses, and here we go.

And we need more of them!

Just for reference: in my State (somewhere in Latin America), since 2007, we have a law that TL;DRs to "if you offer a service through a certain mean, you must offer the cancellation method through the same mean; plus by phone, or internet, or snail mail".

It works like a charm because, contrariwise to what Michael Powell is claiming, customers aren't such disgustingly stupid trash that will "accidentally" hit the cancel button, nor they deserve to be punished by making cancellation a fucking pain in the arse. (There's probably similar laws elsewhere.)