I only see one title and one post body; what happens if 3 people share the same link but with 3 different titles and description bodies?

Do they get merged, does one get arbitrarily selected, or does this only work on posts with identical link+title+body?

But they were still users who were active in that half-year, so even when they went offline it shouldn’t have resulted in a dip

This graph doesn’t make sense to me. The drops on the two graphs shouldn’t line up, right? Make me sus

That’s a very reddit thing to say

Ah makes sense.

I wasn’t even concerned about the low priority of passenger cars. I meant the physical condition of the track itself, and the resulting reduction in top speed along many section in the maritimes.

I wouldn’t be surprised, the govt loves investing in things and then just giving it away to private companies to squander. It’s the 3pp way.

Also: via rail sucks. They don’t actually maintain their tracks, they just keep slowing down the trains instead.

Almost all “Canadian” news media are now American News media.
They went on a buying spree of Canadian news outlets over the last 5 years or so

“I buy from companies who most closely match my ethics” is virtue signaling, now?

We live in a capitalist society, and voting with our wallet is the only vote we get. Not everyone can afford to vote, but why wouldn’t you if you could?

If this is virtue signaling, it’s the most subtle milquetoast virtue signaling ever.

I agree but I think that that actually enforcing it will be even harder than enforcing the existing income and capital gains taxes. We should still try, but we should spread our net wider.

Well put.

I guess I also don’t really know the average users behavior, or more specifically typical fedi behavior of users who would use a matchmaking service.

I’m just highly skeptical of compatibility quizzes, it feels like there must be a better solution.

That sounds like they’d ban content promoting the eating of the rich, too.

I’m all for banning fascist content, but I don’t wanna lose the French revolution vibes.

I actually think observing your actual behaviour would be a better more honest way of matching.
And technically it’s all public info so it’s not technically a privacy issue; they’d get it over activitypub the same as all fediverse platforms already do.

But it feels wrong to do.

What would the matching mechanism do? Look at your fediverse activity and match people who like the same things as you?

Could be interesting but creepy

But it also has to be defended separately by the admin of every server that has a user subbed to that community. Seems like a large burden to put on small-mid instance admins.

I’d be surprised if my server admin was really paying attention that closely to votes on communities I’m subbed to, right?
I have to admit I don’t know the view that admins get of how their server intersects the fediverse.

I’m not sure how giving every server access to the votes solves that.
The malicious server can make fake users to pump up votes. your server admin has to notice, then check the vote logs, then see what’s happening and defederate them. That’s pretty much what you described in your scenario, anyways.

What do you mean “send fake votes”?
Or rather, who do you think should be responsible for identifying and blocking fraudulent votes?

And how do you reconcile votes that come from servers that you’ve defederated with? Should everyone have the same view of the post, or should people only see votes from servers that their server is federated with? What about votes from users you’ve personally blocked? Etc

I personally kinda think that the responsibility is on the server hosting the post, and that everyone should see the same (but anonymous) vote count, of which the hosting server is the single source of truth.

The server hosting the post needs it.

It only needs to tell other servers the vote count, and the votes of people on that other server.
That may not be how it actually works, but that’s all that’s needed

I think there is still value in their reminder that Galen Weston isn’t forgiven, despite being Canadian; so don’t get so caught up in our passion to switch to Canadian brands that we end up giving our money to someone nearly as bad.

I still don’t really think them listing a single example (or many) would prove anything, or be meaningfully useful. I wouldn’t mind hearing some of their experience in looking for local, so people know what to expect, but I don’t think we need to be upset that they didn’t.

In other words, I think they are contributing, even if their tone is perhaps not ideal for moving people to action.

Unless it’s Loblaws

I think their point was “don’t just buy Canadian, but local” which means the unless you live near each other, their recommendations won’t help. This is generally more impactful advice.

But I appreciate your point that we want to make it easy to avoid American products, to lower the bar so more people do it; so listing national brands makes that much more useful.