pull down to refresh
I don't share slop, sorry. Its bespoke. Here's how you make it:
- Let bot build a graphql cli that does introspection
- Let bot use graphql cli to build some queries
- Let bot formalize queries into cli tool
- Use it or let bot use it and whenever you run into an issue, let the bot fix it.
- Goto 4
no worries, and thanks for outlining your process; even if I persist in my refusal to use LLMs for this[1], your comment makes it seem like less work.
that was my first anonposting btw! I visited SN from my phone and found that the friction of authenticating my existing account for just one comment was greater than that of paying some LN fees.
"this" = code; I believe fundamentally that computer programming is not only useful for accomplishing chores, but also [when done correctly] a "mind amplifier" that helps form a more efficient mental model of how various parts of world work. vibe coding might lower the energy barrier for accomplishing chores like "sn cli", although it does this by trading away the intelligence amplification. ↩
I think someone was asking for a controversial tab
The problem I see is that if you're not logged in to SN, those downzapped posts are fully outlawed. So any post on SN is only guaranteed discoverable by your subscribers, and people with negative infinity filter.
this doesn't have much to do with trust, it has to do with removal of sum(log10(up))-sum(log10(down))
it has to do with removal of sum(log10(up))-sum(log10(down))This has more to do with trust than it seems because without trust it assumes one account equals one person. e.g. if I'm a troll, I will create 100 sock puppets to downzap 10 sats each. Put another way: trust is how we were counting people before.
I'd like to come with a solution to this that doesn't rely on one account equaling one person. One random idea: an account can only downzap as much as it has zapped any given day.
if I'm a troll, I will create 100 sock puppets to downzap 10 sats each.
Now though, one account is enough. Haha.
I get what you're saying though: the log10() doesn't help against megatrolls and can be gamed, exactly like now.
With the down limits, I just upzap my puppet on my territory and with 9% loss I downzap away. Costs 50k a month to do that.
Make this experiment for a month: you can downzap ONLY with CCs.
hahahaha SS will cry for my zaps with CC
LMAO
Darth always come up with the most assholish solutions
I'd rather see how this plays out than reach for more complexity.
I'll tell you how it likely plays out. The scope of people to downzap narrows after people will unhide their cowboy tools and thus the cost lessens. Compliance with an aggressor because they're sick of their posts being desperado'd all the time, is the status quo in 99% of stackers' day to day.
Currently the downzapper is at a 3x disadvantage. In order to downzap my post 100 sats, the downzapper actually has to pay 100 sats. On the other hand I only have to pay 30 sats to zap my own post 100 sats (as long as I use a sock puppet or anon to do the zapping). This is already a pretty strong bias against downzapping.
I don't think that that's reality. That's a theory that everyone has a sockpuppet.
In reality this happens:
- I pay a fee to post. Say 100 sats, these are all the sats I have
- You zap me 100 sats, i get 70
- Downzapper zaps down 244
- My post is now invisible.
- Now I can boost 70 sats, my post will still be (barely) visible, but at least I got my non-invisible post out, which cost me 100 sats
It's not 3x more expensive for the downzapper. It's 1:1.
Thinking about @k00b's point that it causes problems to assume that one account = one person, perhaps it does make sense to treat boosts (self-zaps from your own account) like a sockpuppet self-zap rather than the current 0 sats from a boost go directly back to the booster -- some possibly do via rewards.
If the reality you describe is what often happens, it means we have a easily gameable distortion built in: if someone uses a sockpuppet to zap themselves, it is clearly one-sided in the self-zappers favor:
If we assume both poster and downzapper start with the same number of sats:
| action | poster balance | downzapper balance |
| starting | 500 | 500 |
| poster pays 100 sats post fee | 400 | 500 |
| downzapper downzapps post 100 sats | 400 | 400 |
| poster sock-puppet zaps 200 sats | 340 | 400 |
| downzapper downzapps post 200 sats | 340 | 200 |
| poster sock-puppet zaps 300 sats | 250 | 200 |
| downzapper downzaps post 200 sats | 250 | 0 |
| poster sock-puppet zaps 200 sats | 190 | 0 |
Perhaps SN needs to operate on the premise that using a sockpuppet never gives a stacker an advantage over using their own account.
I dunno abt this, I feel like we are letting one vandal significantly change the way the platform works.
atm this post has more positive than negative zaps, but nowhere near top in LIT, just wondering why, maybe the difference is too small?
Good for meme Monday
Everything below your (or anon’s) sat filters can be viewed here: https://stacker.news/new/desperados
Wait, is that right? I thought the entire concept of outlaw was deprecated. But I didn't know there was some differentiation between logged in and logged out users
TOPDOWN.
We are only downzapping. For fun.
HELLHOLE
SIN TOWN
GUNSLINGER
SHOWDOWN
GUNFIGHT
FACE OFF
SALOON
🤠
Later today or tomorrow you could make a post asking for this filter, with a list of possible names. The stackers would pick two or three options, then in another post you could run a poll with the 10 most voted ones for the final choice.
PARASITES
what if