blightbow

It means you aren't suited to run a public facing business. There's nothing wrong with that, but speaking as someone with a lot of social anxiety baggage there are things I'm equipped to do well and things that I'm not. I shouldn't let that stop me from opening a business if I really want to, but if I simply don't want to deal with the social rejection elements I have to accept that I'm better off letting someone else run that side of a business.

As for the non-business elements of your question, all you can really do is conduct yourself in a way that you don't believe you'll find yourself regretting later. If you say something in a public place, especially online, consider it part of the public record. It can and will come back to bite you later. Assume your [morally positive family member here] is always watching.

having people go out for original research is basically saying “Let people make up bullshit.”… not a good idea.

Yeah, I've seen what this does to fan wikis. There is a certain type of personality that thrives on having their version of reality be what is reflected in wiki articles, and they will revert any and all attempts to excise their personal theories. If admins step in to break up the edit war, it's clearly "favoritism" and "admins should only exist in service to the users and have no say in content". Some of these wiki addicts go out of their way to become the wiki equivalent of Reddit's supermods in order to ensure that they have the upper hand in these content disputes.

"No original research" is one of the core pillars of your ability to push back against delusional nonsense. If you're determined to live without it, you need to have very strong content standards in its place to decide the difference between objective fact and someone's conspiracy vomit. Good content policies save you from having to waste a bunch of time on bad faith arguments about why the content of your wiki pages have to abandon fact for massaging someone's ego.

(Somewhat of a tangent, but if you're bored you can look into a brief history of AlexShepherd's crusade against circumcision in the Silent Hill fandom. He's not the only person I've seen thrive on wikis who don't adopt an original research policy, but definitely the most entertaining read.)

I’m also here to expose bad excuses.

Not being able to help someone who is refusing to provide technical detail is a pretty damn good excuse in this industry.

If your goal is to expose the bad excuses of others, step one is to put in as much effort as you're expecting from others. :P

Edit for good measure: (links fixed, forgot about direct linking comments from outside of a lemmy instance)

• Your instance was not federating with lemmy.world. [1]
• You assumed that the blame had to rest on lemmy.world because you had "eliminate[d] all the possibilities [you] had at hand". [2]
• You made this post to vent about a bunch of unrelated nonsense and refused to provide technical detail that would assist the admins in troubleshooting. It's a given fact that your privacy is your choice, but it's also a given that you shouldn't be a dick about it if you choose to withhold details, even from PM. For the record, the information being requested was the bare minimum for an instance administrator to troubleshoot network interactions with a remote instance.
• A random (but cool) third party identified the issue with your instance not federating. [3]
• Instead of apologizing, you proceeded to act like you were entitled to that solution from the admins you wrongly accused. [4] You are not god's gift to the internet and they are not technical support for your instance.

There's no room for niceties here, you are either an asshole in denial or some brat who is too young to know any better. Sleep on it. Come to terms with that fact and make good on it, or don't. You aren't worth anyone's energy, and I'm only bothering with this summary for everyone else's sake. Your problem is fixed, it was never on lemmy.world's side to begin with, and somehow you are still acting like the failure of the admins to figure out what was busted with your shit is some Sherlock gotcha moment.

I am unaffiliated with lemmy.world and my toxicity does not represent the opinions of the admins. (but they're probably thinking it)

In my work, when someone comes to me and assumes I or my team is screwing up because they “eliminated all possibilities at hand” 90% of the time, they screwed up and didn’t realize it.

Yeah, at that point the onus is on the person putting forth the problem to show their work. Start listing off possibilities that you've eliminated. You can have thirty years of technical experience and still be completely useless by assuming that you're just as smart as the person you're explaining the problem to.

"I did eliminate all the possibilities I had at hand"? Naw man, anyone dropping that line has only eliminated all possibilities that they can think of, and all of that supposed thinking about "all the possibilities" is worthless if they aren't going to offer it up as a starting point.

She should be punished for mishandling classified information, as much as Trump should be punished for using an unsecured phone for his presidential duties. As we keep saying in this thread, it's possible to have a consistent opinion in all of this.

Next you have to prove that her servers were handled that way for the purpose of tampering with evidence in a court of law. Y'know, like people are trying to do right now with Trump? The problem here is the matter of proof. It's unfortunate for Trump that his lackeys were caught trying to destroy evidence and, y'know, left behind evidence of trying to do so, but that's what it takes to prosecute someone for that particular crime.

Let me reframe the question for you. Do we think Hilary and her aides should be prosecuted if evidence supported targeted tampering instead of incompetence? Yes. If it was deliberate, is it a shitty thing that she and her staff were not prosecuted because there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction? Also yes.

which you seem to think is the case, and that it’s good, somehow.

Imagine licking the boot so bad that you twist two trillion dollars going up in smoke into a win

We seem to keep coming back to how I supposedly think or assumptions about why I was asking the question. Either you have confused me for the original person you were replying to, or you're jackhammering straw men onto anything they might stick to while making a conscious choice to be a tool about it.

As you were.

No, was asking you for your thoughts on this specific sentence, on its own:

Do you think the pentagon has EVER passed an audit?

Which you did eventually stumble into, but not before engaging in some mental gymnastics for the sake of accusing me of mental gymnastics. Thanks, sort of?

What feedback do you have on the first sentence, which is not hyperbole? Honestly curious. You appear to have very strong opinions on this topic, but you aren't replying to any of the comments pointing out 33 years worth of failed audits.

Is this most recent one particularly suspect compared to audits that have come before it, and more sketchy than ones that have failed during administrations run by the other party?

Ok but to balance it: it forces you to confront your own on the topic as well.

I was actually tempted to include that in the original, but I didn't want to belabor it. :)

I'm fine with this, and would prefer it that way.

Ability to force anyone to objectively confront their own cognitive dissonance by maintaining eye contact.

Possibly too powerful. Some heads may spontaneously combust from a lifetime of preferring their own reality.

desperately struggles to maintain character while responding again

turns purple in the face and vanishes in a puff of logic