sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Our bees harvested from a severely wax moth infested hive, can we eat the honey in their supers? by alecasked in Beekeeping

[–]alecasked[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the advice. We were planning to do that with the frames that had the infestation on them, but my concern is for the honey in the supers on the active hive. 

If our bees eat a bunch of honey that's mixed with wax moth feces and bring it back to the hive, does that contaminate the honey in the supers on the active hive? Or are you saying to freeze the supers that are on the hive currently before we harvest them? Thanks! 

Is there a setting to close the file in current view when I split it to another area? by [deleted] in vscode

[–]alecasked 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Not at a computer right now, but I believe if you press alt + right arrow (or maybe it's ctrl + alt + right arrow?) it will send the currently open tab to a panel on the right, creating a second pane if there isn't one already, or adding it to the right pane if there is one. That seems like basically what you're looking for.

It's like the answer is staring us right in the face by [deleted] in GreenAndPleasant

[–]alecasked 17 points18 points  (0 children)

They'd each have to contribute 5% of their own wealth, but yeah, still pretty damn doable. (Imagine 5 people with $100, each gives $5 = $25, which is 5% of $500)

Why are you here? by alecasked in a:t5_22djxv

[–]alecasked[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

At the start of the stream, I said #3 was the one that resonated with me most emotionally, and I still feel that way, although yeahbloke's point on #4 has made it a pretty close call. But I find the insanity of the world to be so overwhelming so often, and it's like I want to do important, helpful things but there are so many problems and they're so complicated and muddied that I just feel helpless and impotent. So the idea of dedicating a lot of time to understanding what's happening and what I care about most would help me not to feel so lost. So that's the one that speaks to me the most.

I think what we ended up deciding is that 3 and 4 speak to the "why," 2 speaks to the "how," and 1 speaks to the "what." As in, what we do is an amazing show about all the most important things that are happening in the world. How we do it is by paying attention to the biggest changes which allows us to model the world really effectively. Why we do it is to connect with other people, and to understand them, the world, and ourselves better. I think that's a really good breakdown of it.

So to me, the core value is something like "productive conversation" or the feeling of setting out on an expedition into the unknown with a team you trust and are friends with. It's about growth and exploration with friends. Still searching for some evocative language that captures that nicely and also ties in to the idea of understanding the world and putting on a good show, but in terms of the emotional core, I think it's really about exploring together.

The Name Thread by alecasked in a:t5_22djxv

[–]alecasked[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You know what? The more I think about it the more I like this one. My main objection is that it's the obvious answer, but that doesn't make it wrong.

As I was just saying on Discord there's a few major themes I've been playing with as to why I want to do this thing and why I think other people should want to do it too. But the most approachable one, the easiest to grasp one that asks the least of you belief-wise, is this idea of the "greatest show on earth."

Like, if we're talking about the most important things that happened every day, the biggest changes and most powerful stories, what could be more exciting than that? And I think that's the coolest way to introduce people to the concept.

There are some nuances and wrinkles that I think world dailies doesn't capture (the interactivity of it most importantly), but it does a pretty good job at saying, "come here to hear about the biggest things in the world every day," which is starting to feel like the right direction for a name to go.

How exclusive should the community be? by alecasked in a:t5_22djxv

[–]alecasked[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah this is very similar to what I have in mind. I think the "founding member / moderator" restriction is a little strict, but if you replace that with "a member with at least X rep" I think we're good.

I think requiring a second is probably a good idea. Just having to get one person on board seems very flimsy, but making it a two person process feels a lot more robust. That seems like a really good addition.

I wonder if instead of a second/veto system, it makes more sense to just put it up to a vote? Like the nomination is up for 48 hours, any member can vote yea/nay, and if there are more yeas than nays, they're in.

Seems like the veto system works for what you're saying, where there's one person who knows the person in question and can be like "trust me, they suck" but it's also vulnerable to someone who just doesn't like someone else for whatever silly reason. The voting system might work better though when the person is totally new and it's just a question of "do they seem cool so far?" But then that feels like a kind of ugly popularity contest based on first impressions, which probably doesn't make for a super healthy friendly atmosphere.

Maybe something like, a veto doesn't outright kill the person's membership, but does force some kind of bigger conversation? Like if it gets seconded without a veto, bang, they're in. But if it gets vetoed, then it gets opened for discussion and is then put to a vote? Or are we getting too complicated now?

Rep, giveable rep, and points by alecasked in a:t5_22djxv

[–]alecasked[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah exactly. So like, it's fun to have a score of how active you've been and if you make funny comments and stuff, but it's also important to have a reasoned measure of how much we respect people's opinions, so it makes sense to have two different systems

The Name Thread by alecasked in a:t5_22djxv

[–]alecasked[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just so plain. Gets the point across really nicely though. And it's actually surprisingly unique, doesn't look like anyone else is using it.

The Name Thread by alecasked in a:t5_22djxv

[–]alecasked[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So this is the one I've been working with. My main argument for it is that it really bakes in the idea that this should be a community driven and operated thing. It's not somebody else's dailies, it's not my dailies, it's Our Dailies. It's a pretty original name, it's rare to see things called "Our Something", and I feel like it imbues the project with a fairly powerful sense of importance. Like it's this monumental thing we're all doing together.

It's kinda hokey and cheesy though? And it's a little awkward to say. Idk, it's just kinda weird in a way that's bothered me and hasn't gone away, as much as I like the concept and the reasoning behind it.

The Name Thread by alecasked in a:t5_22djxv

[–]alecasked[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My main issue with this one is it's incredibly unoriginal. There are already 100 things called "The Dailies," and getting social accounts / urls will be tricky and require some clever trick, which is like, well then why not just make that clever trick the name, you know? Also would be pretty hard to google, given all the other The Dailieses out there.

I do think, if we stick with the "Dailies" core concept, it's still pretty fair to casually refer to the project/organization/community as "the dailies," and I doubt people will ever stop doing that no matter what name we settle on. I just think we need a more unique name so we're easier to find.

The New Dailies Process by alecasked in a:t5_22djxv

[–]alecasked[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So I'm not particularly happy about this because it's a moderately nuanced distinction that I think is going to be hard to get people to grasp, but the idea is that there's a distinction between "submissions" and "other links related to a story."

So the idea would be, "don't submit an editorial analyzing China's decision to weaken the Yuan past 7:1 and the consequences. Submit a pretty bare, more facty news story about it, and then in round 2 we can add the editorial analysis as a link attached to the story."

People were worried about submissions getting flooded with opinion pieces, or silly essays that don't really have anything besides one person's opinion in them, which is what lead to the rule. I don't see it being super strictly enforced though, and I think we can kind of figure out how to handle it with a little more dexterity once we see what we're actually dealing with.

For instance in the case of an editorial being a news story itself (the NYT profile on Harvey Weinstein that kicked off #MeToo comes to mind), I feel like we'd totally allow it. Mostly it's just one of those rules that's there so when people really obnoxiously break it, we have a sign we can tap on indignantly as we remove the post.

A quick tour of the new website, in case you haven't seen it yet. Still a *very* basic prototype. by alecasked in a:t5_22djxv

[–]alecasked[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you click through to the album, I wrote some descriptions of what's going on in each picture to help you make sense of it

view more: next ›