Many, many years ago, on one of the earliest ARPANET (the Internet's ancestor) mailing lists (probably HUMAN-NETS) I noted what was already becoming obvious -- that interaction restricted to text was likely to exacerbate many comments into misunderstandings, hurt feelings, and flame wars -- for the simple reason that all manner of human contexts -- speech emphasis, tone of voice, facial expressions, mannerisms, body language, and more, simply do not exist in a text-only universe. Sarcasm is almost impossible to express without labeling it explicitly, and using uppercase letters or bracketing asterisks for emphasis provide only the crudest of additional signals.
It is unfortunate that even after all these years, we find ourselves in pretty much exactly the same situation in email and social media, including, sadly, here on #Mastodon.
The more things change, the more they really do stay the same.
@wernerprise
Sarcasm in books works because the characters, their mindset and the situation are made transparent, usually by a narrating author. Even in books it works less well if the story is told from an ego perspective. And it simply does not work in poems, without additional context.
So the limitations are pretty similar and while text length plays some role, the main difference is the perspective. @lauren
@wernerprise What @lauren describes is known as the restricted channel hypothesis in computer mediated communication. But it's not just restricted, there are other technical factors, like (a)synchronicity, persistence, anonymity and psychological factors like increased self-disclosure. Users can adapt and overcome the limitations.
@lauren Sure. But one tends to overestimate the effect of computer mediation and its limitations. If you message with your spouse then sarcasm mostly works well. But with perfect strangers it doesn't — computer mediated or not. @wernerprise
@lauren Okay, that's unforeseen. You started this thread about the lack of emphasis, body language etc in the text-only universe of mailing lists and now Mastodon. All of this is computer mediated communication. I thought that's what we were talking about. Sorry, if I was mistaken. @wernerprise
@lauren Ah, I see. I used computer mediated communication here as defined by media sciences. This does not mean active enhancement, but simply computer transferred communication. So humans typing at each other in text based communication is definitely included, as long as they use computers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-mediated_communication @wernerprise
@lauren That's fine, as it doesn't really matter to the point I was making: We tend to overestimate the effects of the restrictions of text based communication. Texting a sarcastic remark to your spouse usually works well. But with perfect strangers it doesn't — whether that would be face to face or text based. @wernerprise
@lauren It follows that we are comparing very different social situations. Maybe because in text-based communication they don't feel so different. Whether you're talking to your spouse or a stranger, your personal situation doesn't necessarily change. @wernerprise
@lauren Yes, but that isn't a restriction of text based communication itself, but a misinterpretation of the social situation, although aided by the lack of clues. And it is avoidable. We can remind ourselves that we don't actually know the person we're writing to. @wernerprise
Here’s a question: suppose I have bunch of HTML inputs (dropdowns, sliders, whatever), and I want their values to set the values of #JS variables, both on load and whenever changed. Is there a way to do that in a generic manner short of dumping all the variables into an object so I can use their member names using array-ish syntax, or pushing everything through an eval()? [shudder]
@sil@joelanman@Meyerweb
Note that while CSS IDs do exist as global variables under window from the start, they can easily get overwritten, if you're not the only one scripting on that page. Also this approach doesn't change your JS variables on change of the inputs yet.
If you're alone on that page go ahead and use the global window.vars and update all of them with document.onchange. Easy. The safer way of course is to document.querySelector the IDs and write individual change listeners.
@joelanman
Sure, if that works for @Meyerweb. I was going strictly by the requirements in his post:
> I want their values to set the values of #JS variables, both on load and whenever changed @sil
@Meyerweb
Also if this is a recurring task on your site, then a simple JS frontend framework like alpinejs will help decrease development costs. I'm not a fan of frameworks but a highly interactive web app is the one use case in which they make sense. @joelanman@sil
@Dylan I'm sorry to hear that your umbrella failed you. Fortunately there are umbrellas that practically cannot be inversed. For the last 8 years I've been using a 16 spined Doppler umbrella. I'm sure there are others that will achieve the same feat. In any case the number of spines seems to be decisive in their stability. It's worth investing a little bit in a decent umbrella. Best of luck, Sir.
In Settings > Safari, the “Default Browser App” option for choosing a different default browser is hidden. But if you set your default browser in that browser’s own settings, then in Settings > Safari, “Default Browser App” will appear.
@simevidas It may be visible only in a browser that is currently not the default. Have you checked if it's in the Firefox settings when FF is default? Anyway, sus af.
Just noticed that Chrome now has a new native "reader mode" that displays pages with everything except the text stripped out, and lots of options for how you want that text displayed. Having this native in the browser is definitely a win.
@lauren Safari was first then Edge and Firefox. Chrome has had this since forever, but hidden and unpolished.
It's useful for news articles and you can print that cleaned up page (or better yet "print" to PDF).
Feeding #Threads trash into #Mastodon is the functional equivalent of when Tom Sawyer got the other kids to whitewash the fence for him for free. Only in this case Tom is Zuckerberg and his cohorts, laughing at the "Fediverse" rubes.
@lauren
Any Mastodon instance admin can moderate their instance and block users or whole instances. The only difference I see is that Threads will be a huge instance, which has some social implications. But even if you get booted there, you're still no worse off than you were without Threads. @timbray@luis_in_brief
Joplin is now available on the @portableapps platform! This will make it easier to install it on a USB key or to install it in a fully portable way on any system. #portable#opensourcehttps://buff.ly/3TPiN3a
@joplinapp Thanks, I'm still unclear how the update mechanism works. I know that PortableApps generally relies on their own platform (Start.exe) for updates. But I don't use that platform. Will I still get updates?
@LeftistLawyer You are comparing 5 billion globally to locally declining birth rates. But the global birth rates are still rising and according to the latest stats will continue to do so much longer than anticipated, ie 10 billion won't be the limit we thought it'd be.