previnder

Clicking on the line with the cursor worked for me.

It worked fine ten minutes ago, but now it's not loading.

I recently got into blogging; and while I was designing my site, I went through hundreds of blogs and personal sites, and I saw many instances of the same thing.

If I remember correctly, Leonardo da Vinci also had a similar routine.

I would, however, add that just because most people are bad at estimating others doesn't mean that everyone is equally bad. There may be some people who are incredibly good at seeing where others are coming from and what their true intentions are. But, of course, everyone's probably overestimating their own capacity to estimate others.

I wonder if this is because the creators routinely prune negative comments of them. Or perhaps it is because Youtube severely down ranks comments with dislikes.

Golang on the back-end (with mysql and redis) and React on the front-end.

I launched an alternative a few days ago you may want to check out: https://discuit.net/. We're still in the very early stages, however.

Thanks. I checked out your site. Cool, unique design. And the back button works!

Thanks. This is what I mean, perhaps I should have explained better.

I've now just dropped the "no politics" rule, because people seem to get the wrong idea.

Wikipedia, although a non-profit, is not federated; it's a centralized platform. It doesn't seem to me that it's centralization that's necessarily the problem, although, I agree with you, it often is.

> A lot the post above boils down to "Trust me bro." As early users of a new website, what assurances can be put in place to help us believe the motives here? As the site grows, and costs exponentially more, your mindset and desires are sure to change.

Looking at this from your perspective, you have a really good point here. And I don't know exactly what to say to you except that, at the end of the day, with anything with network effects, you have to trust someone. This even applies to the fediverse; you have to trust the admins.

Perhaps the most that someone can do here is to proclaim their values loudly, so that they are, at the very least, putting their reputation on the line.

If you have any ideas what I could do here, I'd love to hear. Seriously.

> Can you turn which moderators affect your feed on and off?

Right now the site is very basic. But this is an interesting idea to explore, for sure.

I'm also thinking of similar ideas. Examples: moderator logs for transparency; ability for members to vote moderators out, etc.

HN is more or less moderated on similar guidelines, and the discussions here are better than on most online spaces I've been a part of.

I understand that one cannot draw a line to clearly separate categories from categories, but that doesn't mean that categories don't exist.

As to the definition of these terms, I was only thinking of their "common sense" meaning.

I'm not following follow you?

Well, the problem is that people use the word 'love' to refer to all sorts of things from sexual desire, to attachment, to kindness, compassion, and benevolence.

The Pali word 'mettā' means something quite similar to 'agape'. In Buddhist traditions, mettā (or loving-kindess) meditation is all about cultivating this sort of sentiment by conscious effort. From the very little I've practiced this, I can confirm your point about how benevolence, for some reason, reduces fear and anxiety (often we aren't even aware that it's there).

Hedonism, if it's logically consistent and takes a long-term view, is basically Epicureanism, which is far from what comes to mind when we hear the term hedonism.