Exactly! If your app can be wiped off the face of the Internet on a moment’s notice, you’re clearly putting way too many eggs in one basket. Even a mobile friendly website would be good, but a proper web app would be so much nicer.
Thanks for the wall of text. :D Really appreciate it that you took the time to explain these things.
Anyway, I have some follow-up questions about the stability/volatility of theories. Recently, I've been thinking about the how firm and solid the models and theories are in different sciences. For example, physics has all the basics pretty well nailed down, whereas in psychology even the basic things tend to get frequent updates as more data becomes available and old ideas get challenged.
In physics, there are models that have known blind spots. Currently, we know that our model of gravity is ok for large objects such as tennis balls, planets, stars and galaxies. In an atomic scale though, our model of gravity just doesn't line up with our understanding of quantum mechanics. So what about Economics then? Have we identified serious flaws in our economic models, like we have with gravity, or are the models about as solid as the theory of atoms or energy?
Or maybe the models are more like suggestions that kinda work occasionally, but mostly you have to take the predictions with a grain of salt. You mentioned that the idea of controlled inflation smoothing out larger recessions and depressions is still debated, so maybe that concept could be contrasted with the theory of gravity. It works for the most part, but there are known issues with it.
When atoms and electrons were discovered, a whole lot got rewritten, but now that we've been working with these fancy new particles for about a hundred years, this part is looking pretty well established. Finer details like string theory is anything but solid, but the big picture is nice and firm. It doesn't look likely that any new data would lead to us throwing away our idea of atoms. Quite the contrary, now that we've even got pictures of individual atoms, and we have the means to manipulate them individually. Obviously, the finer details are absolutely going to change as better data becomes available, but those topics are quite exotic, like dark matter and dark energy.
The whole concept of atoms is about as solid as it gets, but are there comparable theories in economics? Something fundamental that has been tested countless times and nobody has been able to prove that the idea is wrong. Something that is accepted as a foundational cornerstone and is unlikely to get thrown out the window. Maybe something like supply and demand, but is that actually solid enough? Does that stuff get tested, debated and challenged? Have economists found some holes in these kinds of theories?
That makes me miss the old forum days where everyone had some fancy bonus text (a signature) at the bottom of each post. Why don't we have signatures any more on any platform? Was it really such a bad idea that it died with the forums?
About that "net slowdown". I think it's true, but only in specific cases. If the user already knows well how to write code, an LLM might be only marginally useful or even useless.
However, there are ways to make it useful, but it requires specific circumstances. For example, you can't be bothered to write a simple loop, you can use and LLM to do it. Give the boring routine to an LLM, and you can focus on naming the variables in a fitting way or adjusting the finer details to your liking.
Can't be bothered to look up the exact syntax for a function you use only twice a year? Let and LLM handle that, and tweak the details. Now, you didn't spend 15 minutes reading stack overflow posts that don't answer the exact question you had in mind. Instead, you spent 5 minutes on the whole thing, and that includes the tweaking and troubleshooting parts.
If you have zero programming experience, you can use an LLM to write some code for you, but prepare to spend the whole day troubleshooting something that is essentially a black box to you. Alternatively, you could ask a human to write the same thing in 5-15 minutes depending on the method they choose.
When I've faced the consequences, I've learned a lot.
For example, I thought I knew something about a particular topic, wrote an ignorant comment based on my misguided perceptions, and got called out—rightfully so. Having banged my head against that wall a few times, I've learned to do a little more fact checking before writing about something I think I saw in a documentary many years ago.
So, let's say you write something about the blood circulation of giraffes, there's a pretty good chance that an actual biologist will read the comment and point out the obvious mistakes.
"Yes, but that BBC documentary I was 5 years ago..."
"Sure, but you forgot half the details, and got the rest wrong."
These situations are a good opportunity to learn about biology, but probably not my favorite way. You know, posting something wrong is the fastest way to find out what the real answer is, because people love to correct other people. Posting the same thing as a question just won't be so effective. :D
There are also other types of situations where facing consequences is useful. If you're intentionally insulting people, and they react accordingly, you might want to consider how sensible that style really is. If you never read the responses, you might not even think about these things. That's sort of like maintaining a drive-by shooter lifestyle with no intention to change.
As you pointed out, there are also lots of other situations, where the consequences are not useful or even justified. Expressing an unpopular opinion or insulting people who deserve it may cause some dogpiling. Treating those comments like spam is fine by me, but it's not something that happens very often to me though. Maybe this highlights the fact that people use Lemmy in a variety of different ways, and my experiences are not as universal as I would like to imagine.
That was a pretty good example. He was defending a minority by being abrasive towards those who just go with the flow and perpetuate injustice. If some people got offended, they got what they deserve.
This is the way. Basically, the rule 1 of internet.
Always react based on the title, ignore any news articles or long explanations the post may have. Never click the news article, since we all know journalists are very good at conveying the core message in the title without implying anything even a little bit distorted. On top of that, the average Joes posting their random ideas are also professionals when it comes to crafting descriptive post titles.
Mission accomplished! Now I know that I'm not alone with these confusing feelings. It's a journey of self-discovery we can all embark on together. Well, maybe not all, since some people use Lemmy in a very different way.
Don't mind if I do. I've wanted talk to economists for such a long time, because that's one of the many areas I couldn't include in my formal studies. Yeah, you gotta graduate eventually, and you can't keep on adding more and more courses that have nothing to do with what you're really trying to achieve, LOL.
Anyway, I'm really curious about the state of economics as a discipline. Do you see it as a mature science, or do you think economics still has a long way to go? Are there widely accepted solid theories that no longer change? You know, like a solid foundation you can confidently build upon? Is every new recession a hurricane that tares through the walls and buries the previous foundation under a mountain of mud?
The number of comments, likes, upvotes, responses and other metrics rarely tell you about how interesting you and your comments are. Let's say there's a post with 100 upvotes, and the top comment has like 50 upvotes. If you drop a comment there, you can expect to get 10-30 upvotes. Not more than 50, because the the parent comment already has 50. In some rare cases, the child comment can get more upvotes than the parent, but don't count on it.
You are still a wonderful person even if you get only a handful of comments or upvotes. Even if you got zero, that doesn't change who you are or how good your comments are. These metrics usually tell you something about the time and place of the comment.
The content matters too, but to a lesser extent. If the comment is all middle fingers, don't expect many upvotes. Although, there are always exceptions. Posting the classic "fuck spez" is the kind of hostility people can get behind.
Judging by some of the other comments here, there are surprisingly many people who try to have a civilized conversation in a places where things escalate very easily into a flame war. I prefer to avoid conversations that lead to that much negativity, which highlights yet another interesting usage difference. Because of that, I don't face anywhere near as much hostility as some other people. If I used Lemmy that way, dogpiling might occur more frequently, and I might approach it exactly the way you do—by neglecting those messages for a while.
Speaking of the friendly vibe, I think that's just one of the many benefits of being a small platform. If Lemmy got like 100x the number of users, that vibe would probably shift in a more negative direction.
Yeah, anxiety is a pretty strong word, but feeling worried is what I'm really talking about. You know, that uncomfortable feeling that you may have said something wrong and you're worried about what people might say. It's in the the same general direction as anxiety, but nowhere near as extreme as actual clinical anxiety. Maybe "worrying for nothing" is a more fitting expression for this thing.
Sure, the UI can be nicer on small displays, but the app tends to have fewer features than the site. Just don't see much real benefit in that.