I’m gay

  • 1 Post
Joined 10M ago
Cake day: Jan 28, 2022


Their hobbies likely aren’t causing them to have negative feelings, whereas their work more likely is. Humans are somewhat biased towards needing to vent and talk about issues which cause them negative feelings that they have to do.

People also talk about work for a variety of social reasons. Most importantly, perhaps, is that people often measure social standing by their work. Where they work, what jobs they have, how much money they make, and other characteristics of work are important for many human social evaluations. Because this is important, it becomes socialized as something that you should discuss, and thus becomes a common topic of conversation. People then internalize it as something they should talk about, or is interesting to talk about. It’s a self sustaining model built upon the foundations of social worth and evaluation, supported by the emotional needs of humans.

Interestingly you’ll see that in certain circles where social worth is not derived from your work (minorities in which upwards mobility or potential jobs are limited often talk less about work) but from other aspects of your life (talking about children is a favorite for those who have them and artists love to talk about their creative pursuits) that you’ll find conversation drifting towards different topics instead.

I think the best thing you can do, if you find this boring, is to attempt to redirect conversation away from work and towards something you’d rather talk about. People will naturally drift back towards conversation that they find useful, interesting, or have been socialized to do and ultimately you may need to tolerate this or find a group of friends less interested in talking about their career. I’ve generally found that quips which highlight it’s silly to be talking about work away from work (such as when participating in work offsite trips) or highlight how work is just a means to make money and I’m disinterested in talking about capitalism and would rather know the person and what they find interesting tend to work well to divert conversation away from chatting about work.

To be clear I wasn’t suggesting it should happen without a transparent log (and a very visible one, not one that’s hidden in the modlog) that it happened, such as by having the original title in small text and the moderator who changed the title attached to the new title. This was mostly a use-case to keep things clear and understandable. As it is someone could post a lot of relevant links and just title them all “Article” for example or “Read this” and it wouldn’t be particularly useful and just leads to a lot of moderator cleanup.

I would perfectly be okay with the original title being displayed somewhere and an indicator that a moderator changed the title. If this is something you don’t want to allow, I understand. To be clear, the situation I’m describing is where someone decided to post an article with a modified title which happened to be kinda clickbait-y but mostly just removed any context of what the article was until you clicked into the post where you can see the linked pages title/heading.

From a user perspective, they may not be particularly responsive. If I remove a post after replying to it, how does a user experience this? Will they be notified their post is removed? Will they get my reply in their message box? If they edit their title and I wish to reinstate the post, is there an easy way to do so, and how would this affect sorting if it took say, 2 days for the user to respond?

There’s a lot of legitimate reasons to re-title a poorly titled post. While I can just remove anything that crosses the line, my guess is the user experience of this kind of behavior would be undesirable. In this case I liked the linked article, but the title of the post made it very unclear what the article was about. I don’t want to have to iterate a bunch of rules, either, to help explain the thought process of why an article being re-titled to be extremely clickbait-y might warrant a moderator action but another post in which someone didn’t match the article title perfectly was fine.

Re-title a post?

Is there a way to change the title of a post someone else created on a community you moderate? If not, can we please add this functionality…


Male and female are useful in biology, and therefore in medicine.

As I explained in another comment, in human medicine it is much less useful than knowing what parts a human has and what lab results can tell us about the relevant hormones and other biomarkers of interest. Most people interact with medicine on a personal level, and because of such having more detailed conversations with your doctor(s) will often result in better care.

With that being said, used as a broad term to describe broad effects such as when classifying data at the population level, it can be a useful and quick piece of information to collect. If you’re trying to determine compliance with social determinants of health, it may be faster to collect sex (or gender) than it is to ask people to create a catalog of the important body parts or to ask other broad questions such as “are you disabled” to understand systems better.

It’s an interesting concept, to have a term which is most useful at a certain level of abstraction and less useful the less people you’re referring to with it. We’ve got a decent amount of these in our lexicons and yet I see people drawing false inferences all the time. It’s almost as in if we aren’t having conversations about how broad terms like race, gender, employment status, etc. can be useful when dealing with population level statistics for the purpose of understanding systems, but not particularly useful on an individual basis when trying to determine information about a individual or a small group of them.

I work in healthcare. I’m a data scientist. I get requests all the time where people ask for gender of their patients. Problem is, we don’t capture gender. Or at least, we don’t capture gender for most. We have a field for sex, which is filled in for nearly all patients. Gender is filled in on a separate form which many people are not trained on and thus only present for <5% of our patients.

When I let physicians know that we only have sex available, they inevitably still ask for it. I typically press them as to why- what clinical purpose do you need this for? Their responses vary wildly. Many realize when questioned that they are simply collecting it to collect it - it doesn’t have a real clinical purpose. In some cases, incidences of certain disease states are tied to gender in literature, and knowing that someone is more likely to have a specific disease is something that can be clinically relevant. For these people I provide the information, but I have a short talk with them first. I let them know that the recorded sex often doesn’t tell them what they actually want. There are many individuals with a variety of disorders which can affect what hormones are present in their body, what sex characteristics developed, or how at risk they are for particular disorders. In addition, many trans (and in some cases cis) people may have an inaccurate chart - I have heard plenty of stories of trans men with beards being asked about their prostate by a PCP and trans women asked about concerns related to child birth. While rarer, I have heard the same from some cis people who are androgynous. In most cases a parts inventory is more useful (or in some cases, an understanding of circulating hormones), albeit much like gender, is something we don’t often collect.

Is that all it tells us? Seems a bit of a reach to compare to the usefulness of hot/cold which can inform how/what clothes we should wear to be comfortable or avoid heat stroke or hypothermia, whether an environment can support human life, whether we can get injured from touching an object, what precautions we should be taking when interacting with a hot/cold object, whether a chemical reaction might occur, and many other higher stakes questions than where someone should go to the bathroom.

We would be very interested in a better method for limitation on this as well - some kind of age and size limits or automatic pruning would be wonderful.

You’re absolutely right to say humans do a decent job at understanding the outcomes of our actions and because of such we should be conscious to reduce harm whenever possible.

Responsibility has to do with control or accountability. Ultimately humans are in control of their actions, so it follows that we are responsible for the outcomes of our actions. How seriously certain people treat this responsibility varies wildly and I would venture that many do not take their responsibility towards other living beings seriously. We also have responsibilities towards objects which are not living as well, and we all suffer from occasionally mistreating the objects which hold value in our lives.

Markdown gives you some control over size, but not by much. I like being able to play with font and sizing to get the look of sections just right. To be honest it’s not that much of a difference and I suspect some of my feelings are just because it’s the first time I’ve tried doing it this way. I think the biggest concern is the 10,000 character limit.

A bit less ability to format than I’m used to (although I suppose if you’re hosting the instance you can format it however you want, to an extent), but I agree it can work fairly well

So it’s just a post on our instance, but it was written like a blog article. https://beehaw.org/post/107014

Yep! Just pointing it out as I wrote some 12k characters yesterday and had to trim.

Lemmy has a 10k character limit per post, something to keep in mind.

I’ve also noticed this but been unable to figure out exactly what’s going on. Sometimes the comments would eventually show up, other times they seemed to never show up. I didn’t really have time to investigate deeply and figured it was an issue with federation not syncing appropriately (perhaps update messages sent were not received by beehaw and they were never sent again or checked?). Anyhow, mostly showing up to confirm it’s not an issue with just this user’s account, but something I have noticed as well.

Fair enough, I thought you were arguing that it could be perfect and was just offering a word of caution. I agree these systems can be improved upon, and should.

I could work, if you encourage the correct usage and educate your users about it. Also, a better user interface should communicate the intention and meaning.

Humans are just as often driven by emotions as they are logic, if not more. It doesn’t really matter whether you design a perfect system or not, if it doesn’t account for human behavior.

A quick look at how language evolves, the history of human behavior, how people will regularly vote against their interests, or any other plethora of examples out there of humans being human and you should realize that even when you give a vote a very specific label such as “malicious content” people will still use it to convey any negative emotion as well as use it to control what others say or as an emotional reaction to the content of a message.

The best you can get is an approximation, and you have to understand that people will ultimately use the system differently than you expect or designed them to.

This is one of the reasons beehaw exists, we are upset with the status quo of not actioning users because they don’t ‘technically’ violate the rules, but cause trouble for people. This is why our set of rules is so simplified and open to interpretation. We want there to be discussions around problematic users, and good faith to attempt to change behavior when someone is being problematic.