sellyme

Fortunately it's fairly easy to query the database for that kind of thing and a few editors periodically go through the most implausibly-sized common features, so anything too egregious will get noticed eventually.

The last time I saw a collection of "biggest objects" for various tags it was mostly things that were just subtly mistagged (e.g., an entire forest being tagged as a single tree) rather than vandalism.

Putting aside the "So you hate waffles?" non-sequitur, surely the entire topic of this thread should be a bit of a hint that this misguided policy has not, in fact, "[made sure] courses are fully accessible".

> It's not in your interest buy a $200/mo subscription unless you use >$200 of tokens per month

This is only true if you can find someone else selling them at cost.

If a company has a product that cost them $150, but they would ordinarily sell piecemeal for a total of $250, getting a stable recurring purchase at $200 might be worthwhile to them while still being a good deal for the customer.

> Puzzles in commercial collections don't usually have that problem,

I would argue that puzzles in commercial collections are more likely to have that problem than ones made freely available by hobbyists, as commercial enterprises inevitably cut corners on things like labour costs for an actual human setter.

I have seen dozens of commercial puzzle games and applications that do not make any attempt to verify the (auto-generated) puzzles as solvable, but I don't think I've ever had the same problem on a site like LMD.

> Like how a streaming website will say "Hey, you're using a VPN. We don't allow that" - the user's recourse is to turn off the VPN, or find a new VPN that their service won't detect.

No, the user's recourse is to stop using the streaming website and go back to piracy instead.

Any speedbump to UX is a lost customer. You can not and should not assume that users are going to jump through hoops, because the overwhelming majority will not.

> you're just supposed to know what Kentucky number plates look like from a blurry image, and you're also supposed to know the logo of a sports club? Cool.

Knowing exactly what they look like would help, but the point is more that you're supposed to look them up and see if they match to rule out regions or confirm suspicions. You've got the wealth of human knowledge at your fingertips, use it - if knowing what a Kentucky numberplate looks like might be useful, you can just look that up in a matter of seconds.

> Also, picture has to contain all these clues of course, conveniently, including a couple of street numbers.

Given how many times this individual has narrowed down an exact location from a photo of a straight road with nothing but trees on either side, I think it's fair to suggest that he was picking an easy target for the purposes of tutorialisation.

It might take more than a couple of minutes to narrow down a photo with less obvious clues than this one, but it's fairly difficult to take a photograph outdoors that doesn't give away enough for someone with sufficient knowledge to identify exactly where it was taken.

> so what are you going to do with a number like "17" which appears in almost every street in the country?

Exactly the same thing that Rainbolt did in this video: cut down the amount of work you have to do on each street from checking dozens or potentially hundreds of photos/angles to just 1-3.

Of course if you've only narrowed the streets down to 20,000 candidates instead of 20 of them, that doesn't get you straight to the answer, but it's still a massive proportional improvement.

But the lesson being presented here is to use data that's available to you in the photograph. Maybe you don't have any street numbers (or any particularly useful ones) visible, but you can see the sun at the end of the road and therefore know that it's running directly East-West. That filters out tons of roads. Maybe you can see that houses are only on one side and a river is on the other, you can use that as well. In the video he mentions similar constraints with regards to local parks as being other options for this kind of search narrowing.

The point of that portion of the video isn't "hope the house number is really weird lmao", but to extract any geographical information out of the image and then query that with open mapping databases. House numbers are just one of the most common ones, and while they're typically not quite as powerful as was shown in this video, they're very often going to help dramatically.

There's a few open data projects that provide similar features to Streetview and can very occasionally be useful in regions without coverage. But yes, typically outside of Streetview coverage you'll be relying on satellite photography, which makes things far more difficult. But that doesn't exactly make the advice here any worse, it just means that the problem you're trying to solve is fundamentally more challenging, so even good techniques might not be able to get you to the solution.

I genuinely can't work out what part of this video you think is US-specific. America is far from the only country in the world that has municipality logos on infrastructure, house numbers, or OSM coverage.

There's certainly regions of the world where doing this would be much more challenging (e.g., Central Africa, China, rural India), but the stuff he covered in the video is going to be extremely helpful in the vast majority of cases.

Yes, I've been using TST without the top tab list visible since about 2012.

About halfway through this blog post the topic of LLM "personas" is mentioned, and while the given examples are mostly just jokes, the actual use case for that would solve the problem you perceive of this UX, in that you could simply use a persona that is more concise.

But to answer the "why?" - likely because this type of AI is a tool that is going to become universal very rapidly, and the overwhelming majority of the population has little to no understanding of the finer details of the technology. So the default persona has been fine-tuned to include the annoying "as an AI language model [...]" disclaimer very frequently, amongst other disambiguations, couched remarks, and clarifications that a power user would not necessarily require.

It's not a matter of "wannabe", it's "wannado". Having a bunch of sycophants in the sidebar isn't going to restore a community unless they're actually committed to making the subreddit an enjoyable place to be, and if they were committed to that they'd already be doing it.

What you're describing is administration, not moderation. Very similar concepts, but there's an absolutely gigantic difference in the feel of a community with active moderation versus a site like YouTube where the overwhelming majority of all user-submitted content is never looked at by a single human with the ability to remove it. Often by design - an SMTP server does not have the same use cases as a forum board, and doesn't need the same kind of hands-on attention that a social service requires to be enjoyable.

In theory channel owners have the ability to handle that for YouTube specifically, but in practice the tools and incentives aren't there to make it actually happen.

> Moderation is an important job. It's needed. But I can't think of any other social site that has such a bad rep for moderation.

Pretty much every other social site of note doesn't have a rep for moderation, on account of not having moderation at all. A solid 20% or higher of the YouTube comments I see are straight-up phishing scams, Facebook and Twitter are complete cesspits where only content that's literally illegal to post ever gets removed, and the less said about imageboards the better.

Wikipedia is the only even remotely comparably large site I can think of that actually has anything resembling moderation, and you'll find the exact same crowd criticising them for enforcing their rules as well.

Evidently not, since that's already a motivation that isn't sufficient to get enough people actually doing the work - and if anything, Reddit taking the step of unilaterally usurping community leaders for not being profitable enough would only reduce the perceived power of a moderator position.