coys25

1. Wake up
2. Fall out of bed
3. Drag a comb across my head
4. Find my way downstairs
5. Drink a cup
6. Look up and notice I am late
7. Find my coat
8. Grab my hat
9. Make the bus in seconds flat

If you don't like it, don't pay for it and use something else?

Yep! Fixed it, thanks.

For those of us who used sync for reddit regularly for years, it's pretty cheap. But if it doesn't fit your needs, thankfully you have plenty of other options these days!

A farmer coughs in your face, and then you slowly get sick and eventually die.

How am I going to play my favorite game of "will lens show up" now??

I agree that these changes have all been incredibly stupid and devalue one of the few remaining producers of quality TV (HBO), but I think that this is missing the point. The key is this:

Notably, the loss in subscribers didn’t seem to affect streaming revenue. It grew to $2.73 billion this quarter, marking a 13 percent increase.

In other words, fill up the service with cheap / easy to produce reality crap and hike up prices over time. Revenue goes up and costs go way down. People drift away but you keep growing the bottom line, at least for now. The shareholders rejoice and the consumers lose.

I don't mind it as much, but the wallpaper thing is poorly executed. I have a color photo as my lock screen and a plainish lightly textured background on my home screen. But material you picks colors from the lock screen photo, which I don't see 99.9% of the time!

This screenshot is from earlier today, but i still get the error on the most recent beta. Was able to buy ad-free though, oddly enough.

I also am trying to purchase Ultra but can't. Different issue, I think - I am USA based - but I keep getting this error message:

Yeah - though I had thought that still the one should be higher than the other, even if the numbers are small. In the actual equation, this would be multiplied by a scaling factor of 10000, though. (See the code discussion in the other comments). Though, in this case, the rank would still be very close to zero.

What I had missed is that, in the actual code, the equation is wrapped in floor() and returns an integer. So both are treated as rank = 0 and maybe randomly sorted.

The question is why are rank 0 posts showing up at all? In my other comment, if you do the math, I think that it should take quite a bit of time for any post with an appreciable score to decay to a rank of zero. Yet we see that these sorts of old posts are appearing relatively high in the hot feed.

One possible answer was suggested in another comment -- it may have to do with how often the scores are recalculated for older posts, and if some have not decayed to zero by the time that the score recalculation stops, they might persist with a non zero score until the instance is restarted. I'm still not sure that that is the right answer, however, because I am guessing that instances like lemmy.world (which I am using) have been restarted recently with the various hacking attempts?

Can someone who knows PL/pgSQL help parse this line:

return floor(10000*log(greatest(1,score+3)) / power(((EXTRACT(EPOCH FROM (timezone('utc',now()) - published))/3600) + 2), 1.8))::integer;

It seems to me that the issue might be that the function returns an integer. If the scaling factor is inadequately large, then floor() would return zero for tons of posts (any post where the equation inside floor() evaluates to less than one). All of those posts would have equivalent ranks. This could explain why we start seeing randomly sorted old posts after a certain score threshold. Maybe better not to round here or dramatically increase the scaling factor?

I'm not sure what the units of the post age would be in here, though. Probably hours based on the division by 3600? And is log() the natural log or base 10 by default?

In any case, something still must be going wrong. If I'm doing the math correctly, a post with a score of +25 should take approximately 203 hours (assuming log base 10) before it reaches a raw rank score of < 1 and gets floored to zero, joining all of the really old posts. So we should be seeing all posts from the last 8.5 days that had +25 scores before we see any of these really old posts... But that isn't what's happening.