This is true, but it’s undeniably relevant to this community. By 2024, you definitely have to have known this is what Trump wanted, but even disregarding that:

Garcia was last year expelled by the World Boxing Council for using racial slurs during a livestream. He’s also come under fire for anti-LGBTQ remarks.

Absent other evidence, this clown is just mad that the leopards are eating the wrong people’s faces.

Hi, OP. Per Rule 3, would you mind changing your title to reflect the article title? Thanks.

It’s also preferred if you swap the article and image so that the image ends up in the body while people who don’t want to visit the comments can still have the article in the URL field, but that isn’t a rule.

That wasn’t me you were talking to initially; that was TheLeadenSea. You’ll have to ask them, not me.

Fucking thank you. Yes, experienced editor to add to this: that’s called the lead, and that’s exactly what it exists to do. Readers are not even close to starved for summaries:

• Every single article has one of these. It is at the very beginning – at most around 600 words for very extensive, multifaceted subjects. 250 to 400 words is generally considered an excellent window to target for a well-fleshed-out article.
• Even then, the first sentence itself is almost always a definition of the subject, making it a summary unto itself.
• And even then, the first paragraph is also its own form of summary in a multi-paragraph lead.
• And even then, the infobox to the right of 99% of articles gives easily digestible data about the subject in case you only care about raw, important facts (e.g. when a politician was in office, what a country’s flag is, what systems a game was released for, etc.)
• And even then, if you just want a specific subtopic, there’s a table of contents, and we generally try as much as possible (without harming the “linear” reading experience) to make it so that you can intuitively jump straight from the lead to a main section (level 2 header).
• Even then, if you don’t want to click on an article and just instead hover over its wikilink, we provide a summary of fewer than 40 characters so that readers get a broad idea without having to click (e.g. Shoeless Joe Jackson’s is “American baseball player (1887–1951)”).

What’s outrageous here isn’t wanting summaries; it’s that summaries already exist in so many ways, written by the human writers who write the contents of the articles. Not only that, but as a free, editable encyclopedia, these summaries can be changed at any time if editors feel like they no longer do their job somehow.

This not only bypasses the hard work real, human editors put in for free in favor of some generic slop that’s impossible to QA, but it also bypasses the spirit of Wikipedia that if you see something wrong, you should be able to fix it.

Okay, but I literally just expressed how they’re fundamentally, pragmatically different while you keep reaching for the word “semantics”. You can still disagree that it’s wrong to copy – that’s not what I’m trying to litigage. To call it only semantically different from stealing is asinine.

Too bad. Because it’s being redistributed through a third party, you aren’t even stealing a negligible amount of electricity, bandwidth, or CPU time from them. Damn, when you think about it, it’s just not “stealing” in any capacity, is it?

on the basis of semantics

It’s not semantics when “stealing” results in the loss of the original by the owner while “copying” just results in a new one being created.

TL;DR: ✨die mad✨

I think all of the current rules’ benefits greatly outweigh the (not extremely restrictive) burden they put on the poster:

• Rule 0 is there exclusively to protect posters.
• Rule 1 just says that /c/leopardsatemyface should be “leopards ate my face”. This community would rapidly lose any meaning without it and become a generic “Trump bad [he is]” community; there are still posts that are like “Trump did something bad” or “large cats literally mauled a person” despite it being the first actual rule.
• Rule 2 is more like Rule 1.5, saying that the onus is on you to show that you’ve met Rule 1. This one isn’t often enforced and exists so readers and I don’t have to meticulously research why this is relevant (or, for me, get appeals claiming some convoluted ad hoc chain of logic for why a post actually does fit Rule 1).
• Rule 3 is rarely enforced – only for the worst sources. There are a million other garbage dumps for the Daily Mail or no-name, fly-by-night LLM news mills.
• Rule 4 exists for equitability for visually disabled users, who can report posts so I can then ask the OP to add it to the one reported (instead of removing it) and any posts going forward.
• Rule 5 exists so that multiple posts of the same article don’t clog up the front page (this has happened, and I removed them without realizing there was no rule against it). LAMF is predisposed to it because it’s popular for crossposts. The part about “no top 100” is there to prevent users from lazily recycling what they know works (there’s almost no chance in hell they aren’t doing this if they aren’t breaking the “within 1 year” part). This is the rule most likely to blindside users, but reposts are a cancer for a community.
• Rule 6 exists solely to make it easier for people to post, because they know for sure that non-US and non-contemporary content is allowed.
• Rule 7 exists so I don’t have to duplicate basic things like bigotry, misinformation, etc.

(Didn’t downvote you btw)

OP, would you mind swapping the URL and the body of your post (i.e. putting the article in the URL and the image in the body)? It’s not violating any rules and so won’t be removed, but it’s a lot nicer to have a link to a high-quality article as the main content of the post instead of an image that’s only substantiated if the user bothers to look in the comments. (That is, a user who doesn’t want to interact with the comments and wants to use Lemmy strictly as a link aggregator should still get to read the article.)

Archive of original WaPo article: https://archive.ph/w0s1b

it shouldn't be that hard?

OP, what’s your background to make you think that way, and if you’re qualified enough to make that assessment, why aren’t you getting to work building the ground floor of something potentially highly lucrative?

The response to “It shouldn’t be that hard” for FOSS is invariably “PRs welcome”.

Hi, OP. This post appears to be in violation of two community rules, namely that 1) an on-topic post whose relevance isn’t immediately obvious from the source should be given an explanation with a second source, and 2) that a reliable source has to be used for the story in the post. I’m not going to remove it because these problems are easily solvable. Respectively for these two issues, I recommend something like (your choice if you find something you like better):

1. Adding to the body of your post something like this Pew Research poll showing that Cuban Americans broadly support Donald Trump. The current source does not discuss this at all, and so this post tacitly assumes the reader knows about this.
2. Changing the source URL to something like “What you need to know about Trump’s travel ban on Cuba, Haiti, and Venezuela” by the Miami Herald. The current source is some no-name endless-scroll content mill called CubaHeadlines.

Thanks for contributing! 🙂

Yeah, and to be clear, I actually really like trivia! The front page of Wikipedia has a section called “Did You Know?” (DYK) that has six or seven pieces of daily trivia. These are also researched and follow a similar format. The key differences are that: 1) the corresponding article is right there if you want to immediately verify what’s been said, and 2) this article lets you understand the full context of the trivia if you want.

In this case, the most egregious part isn’t the trivia itself; it’s the kind of culture around trivia that it foments.

>no source

>“it was thought”? cool weasel wording; who thought it?

>tiny snippet offering zero context

>and then people parrot it uncritically

This is why I hate “le epic trivia!!”-style accounts; even when they’re right (and they’re often not), they’re intellectual junk food designed for mindlessly consuming rather than learning.

what zero pussy does to a mf

It’s really appreciated, modifier; thanks! But honestly, the community members are well-behaved enough that they make it easy for me to do right by them. When times are this shitty, I want them to feel like they have somewhere decent left to go.

I don’t at all understand why the second law of thermodynamics is being invoked. Nonetheless, capillary condensation is already a well-studied phenomenon. As the scientific article itself notes, the innovation here over traditional capillary condensation would be the ability to easily remove the water once it’s condensed.

Re: Entropy:

• Entropy is a statistical phenomenon that tends to increase over time averaged across the entire body, i.e. the Universe. Not literally every part of the Universe needs to increase its entropy as long as on average it is increasing. You’re evidence of that: your body is a machine that takes entropy and pushes it somewhere else.
• Water vapor is a high-energy state compared to liquid water. What you’re saying therefore is the opposite of how the second law works: water vapor’s energy tends to spread out over time until it eventually cools back to a liquid. Liquid water is a higher entropy state than water vapor.

When I took over this community, I dissolved the senate, stripped them of their powers, and fucked their moms.

Here’s the key:

• The first source I use is just a scientific article. That’s it.
• The third source is just a scientific article. That’s it.
• The second source that I use to cite “dozens of extinctions” is quite emotionally charged, but here’s where that’s different: I could find a billion sources more credible than that NYT article about the dozens upon dozens of species who’ve met their end thanks to the domestic cat. These sources would give it an unemotional, academic treatment, yet I like how the NYT piece is narratively engaging rather than dry-ass “X et al. reported…”

I used scientific sources for (1) and (3) because those are claims people might actually think to contest. Moreover, the NYT doesn’t let itself slip into using garbage sources for the sake of its narrative. I could replace this source in two minutes, and then your argument about emotionally charged imagery would dissolve.

The reason I care so much about King’s massive bias in that article is because that bias is reflected in how absolutely egregious her sources are. She seems to genuinely not care how factual what she’s saying is as long as it conforms to her personal feelings, and so she turns it into assembling literally every source she can possibly find no matter how obscenely flimsy. She’s grasping at straws the entire article.

What you’ve presented is a deeply biased opinion piece, and it wears this immense bias on its sleeve. It fearmongers that thinking about cats as killing wildlife could cause “extremism” (it then cites as its lone example a man who suggested banning cats in New Zealand; soooo scary). It cites some organization called “Alley Cat Allies” who call it extremely biased with ostensibly zero credentials. They cite lobbyist and serial sexual harasser Wayne Pacelle formerly of the Humane Society who questions the methodology but even concedes: “We don’t quarrel with the conclusion that the impact is big.” And lastly, King herself does her own analysis on this meta-analysis’ methodology despite being – I emphasize – a professor of anthropology with no background in this field.

So your article has no one familiar with this field who could challenge if these statistical assumptions are actually reasonable. And here, given the authors are experts (and absent some published literature rebutting this in the 12 years since), I have no reason to believe their methodology would be so off as to meaningfully change the idea that “outdoor cats” are severely problematic.