Posts by Jacob Foster11

Nicholas King said:Since I’m fairly certain you aren't out here sending unsolicited anatomical photos via PM—and honestly, I suspect people who do that tend to run into some pretty significant misunderstandings by assuming the wrong gender anyway—I can't really imagine any discussion topic or scenario where knowing your interlocutor's gender would actually matter.

How is that possible? Doesn't our language use different word endings based on gender?

For instance:
"Did you make this?" (masculine)
"Did you make this?" (feminine)
If you want to write something like that, you need to know the gender.

I agree, that would be useful. I always have to click on a profile when I'm unsure. This would definitely make identifying genders easier. 👍

It doesn't need to be complicated. Just add symbols like: ♀ ♂

briskbison41 said:Fair enough. I don't know the technical specifics of how this works, so I didn't realize we were talking about mere bytes here.

Regarding the bold text, it sounds like the browser is essentially "caching" it or remembering it somehow.
If it's only grabbing 5 kB on the initial load and then just 1 kB for everything else after that...

Where exactly are you getting those numbers from?

We've drifted a bit off track here.

It’s probably just staying in the browser cache.

I've been working on developing a web app lately, so I have certain tools at my disposal to analyze this (hint: Chrome DevTools). I also have my own site where I embedded a video, so I measured all of that. Basically, for the older embedded videos, it pulled 1 KB per video, but for the newly embedded ones, it hit about 20 KB for the image plus another 1 KB, just like the old ones.

Ugh, regarding server load, the server doesn't care whether it's parsing a link or a YouTube clip. The strain is identical.

As for file size (in bytes), it's negligible. The images only load once—just that one time. These images are roughly 20 KB, which is at least five times smaller than the typical images usually posted. After that, every subsequent load only pulls about 1 KB per embedded video.

I just finished measuring all of this myself.

briskbison41 said:Regarding those video tags—assuming you’re talking about embedded clips—it’s honestly better to just leave them out. It would only drag down the thread loading speeds (I mean, waiting for every single clip to buffer feels like an eternity), plus it starts eating up the forum's storage capacity. Even though we have plenty of gigabytes to work with, that data adds up faster than you'd think.

I don't think video tags would strain the server. They'd be pulling directly from YouTube, not from the forum itself. 😉

Once again, I fail to see the point of this user reputation system.

Here is a proposal for how it should actually work. First, stop counting posts within all the casual chat threads on the forum. A moderator for any given thread should have the option to disable the post counter for users there. Second, reputation should be calculated automatically using a pre-defined mathematical function. This function would take two parameters: the total number of user posts (excluding those from chat threads) and the cumulative number of warnings, points, or days banned (some combination of these). More posts increase reputation; penalties decrease it. Again, based on a carefully selected, predetermined formula.

That is how you make something actually meaningful.

Susan Lee said:So, is that subforum gonna stay like this forever—no images allowed? Or is it just temporary?

That’s how it stands for now. Until someone decides otherwise. Could be tomorrow, could be next year, or maybe never. Check with the moderators over there if you need more info.

I don't see the point. Like shadowpilot8 said, you can always just export any important messages to your computer.

Before I stepped up to moderation, I never even hit 20 total PMs. Now that I'm a mod, I need more than that because I rarely have fewer than 50; it comes with the territory. Between people asking questions and getting a follow-up PM for every warning I issue, my inbox stays full. For a moderator, a limit of 75 messages would be cutting it way too close.

Amanda Murphy26 said:I mean, maybe it’d be a good idea if we actually had some kind of user reputation system here; when you don't have the time to slog through every single thread, you could just stick to reading posts from the high-quality users.

Terrible idea. There is no way to ensure high-quality users actually get a high reputation while the low-quality ones stay low. You'll just end up with a clique of people hanging out in a chat room, artificially boosting each other's scores without contributing anything of value to the site. Meanwhile, an actual expert might only chime in on specific topics where they provide real insight, but because they aren't part of the chat group, they won't have a crew to inflate their reputation.

Susan Lee said:I’m kinda wondering why the "Political Edge" subforum doesn't have an "Insert Image" option like everywhere else does? I guess there's just no way to upload any pics here, no matter what I try.

Because that’s just how it was decided. The moderators over there set those rules in coordination with the site admins. It isn't even the only subforum like that. Images aren't allowed in places like the "Celebrations" or "Banned Users" boards either.

If you really need to include an image in a post, just leave a link to the image instead.

Laura Jackson51 said:It would be quite useful if they integrated this as a minor addition to the posts...

LOL, you're being optimistic. 😂 Certain issues on this forum have persisted for years, and they could be fixed in under an hour (like the text color menu in the posting form). If these problems have been around for years, I think it’s truly—to put it mildly—optimistic to expect any new features on the forum.

Steven Clark2 said:Cosmic, that isn't really the most accurate way to define trolling. Trolling usually aims to derail the topic by focusing on side issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

So, what I wrote is the exact definition of trolling.

Matthew Anderson4 said:I think you're overthinking this. You aren't at fault just because someone else loses their cool and starts hurling insults, provided your own post doesn't break any rules.

Trolling is defined as posting specifically to provoke an emotional outburst from others or to disrupt a productive, on-topic discussion. This is textbook trolling, it's unwelcome, and it's subject to penalties.

Christian Nelson9 said:I’m having zero luck getting an image to actually upload to my post. Anyone know what's going on?
I managed to get one through, I think, but instead of seeing the actual photo, I just got this broken image icon sitting there staring at me.
🙏

Try uploading it here so we can figure out what's going wrong...

Brian Wright56 said:🤷 I honestly can't wrap my head around this—I'm sure it's simple enough, but I just don't get the logic here.😕

Maybe I can break it down for you like this:
Code:

je'l clearer now?

Result:

part of the post outside and above the outer quote

inside the outer quote, outside and above the inner quote
Quote:

inside both the outer and inner quotes inside the outer quote, outside and below the inner quote

part of the post outside and below the outer quote

Brian Wright56 said:Exactly my point.
So, how does one actually pull that off?

Fine, go study it then:

Brian Wright56;28404590 said:

Spec.tre;23687956 said:If you want to quote multiple different posts, select the "Multi-Quote" option (to the right of the Quote button) for all the posts you want to cite except for the last one, then just hit the Quote button on the final post you want. It will automatically wrap all those posts in Quote tags, and from there you can manually delete unnecessary parts, bold what matters, or drop your own comments between the quotes.

Brian Wright56;28404507 said:test

test

test

Brian Wright56 said:test

Brian Wright56 said:

I don't know what to tell you—it’s just common sense at this point. People love to overcomplicate things, but if you look at the facts, the reality is staring you right in the face. It isn't some grand mystery; it's just how things work in America. Honestly, if you can't see that, you aren't paying attention. kaže:
If you’re looking to quote a bunch of different posts at once, just hit that "Multi-Quote" button—it's right next to the regular Quote button—for every post you want to grab except for the very last one. Once you've selected them all, just click the standard Quote button on that final post and you're good to go.

Test run.

I don't know what to tell you—some people just refuse to see the reality right in front of them. It’s like they’re living in some alternate dimension where logic doesn't apply. I've been saying this for a while now, and honestly, if you aren't paying attention, you're just asking to be left behind. It's pretty simple, really—either you get it or you don't. There isn't much middle ground here. kaže:
All those posts are going to get tucked right into quote tags automatically—then you can just go in there yourself, strip out the fluff, bold whatever actually matters, and toss in your own commentary between the quotes.

Testing this out.

test
Like this?

Reach out to the moderator of that subforum and ask them to delete it.

That isn't an image. It's just a link to a Wikipedia page. You posted this:
Code:

That's just a web link. It doesn't work here either. This is the actual image link:
Code:

You need to put that inside the IMG tags. Honestly, I wouldn't even bother because the image is way too wide. If you post it, you'll probably end up getting a warning for posting oversized images.