Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022 Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022 OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published.
Contact OrangeEnt for info: maildrop62 at proton dot me
Now I'll grant you that this article mostly focuses on the platforms' recommendation algorithms and not the users' content, so it's far less a Journalists for Censorship piece than most.
But attempting to regulate complex software systems that are poorly understood even by their own developers and are only fourth-order-tangentially related to any of the ascribed harm is likely just to make things worse.
Instead mandate transparency. Got a magical new recommendation algorithm that gives you an edge over your competitors? Too bad, so sad, you have to publish that code.
Or just stop using recommendation algorithms and hand control back to the users themselves.
Another way of thinking of the Dedekind number is in set-theoretic terms. Think of a set with n elements, say the numbers {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, …n}. That set has 2n different subsets, which form a mathematical structure called a lattice. Now collect those subsets according to the following rule: No subset in your collection can be a part of another subset in the collection. Such a collection is called an anti-chain, because it combines points on the lattice in a way that doesn't form a chain. (For example, {{1}, {2, 3}, {3, 4, 5}} forms an anti-chain.) The number of anti-chains for a given n is, again, the Dedekind number.
I'm not sure exactly why I would want that, but I at least understood it.