cm0002@infosec.pub to People Twitter@sh.itjust.works · 1 month agoStatisticians, is this true?infosec.pubimagemessage-square80linkfedilinkarrow-up1497arrow-down16
arrow-up1491arrow-down1imageStatisticians, is this true?infosec.pubcm0002@infosec.pub to People Twitter@sh.itjust.works · 1 month agomessage-square80linkfedilink
minus-squareprole@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkarrow-up28·1 month agoI don’t think I will ever figure out the order to read these things. Just… Why? Wouldn’t you want it to be formatted in a way that’s immediately obvious what order to read them?
minus-squareAxolotl@feddit.itlinkfedilinkarrow-up7·1 month ago I used bluesky lately (which i guess uses the same format?) and it looks like so because we are viewing a reply(3) to a post (2) that cite another post (1)
minus-squareSkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkarrow-up2arrow-down1·1 month agoGenuine question: what’s confusing about this post? There are some that are confusingly structured, but this one should be quite obvious
minus-squareprole@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkarrow-up2·1 month agoObvious would be top to bottom. You know, like how every human reads.
minus-squareSkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 month agoFor replies, yes. And that is the case. But the first one is a quote, not a reply
minus-squareprole@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkarrow-up2·1 month agoAnd it makes sense to put the reply before the thing they’re replying to.
minus-squareRekorse@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 month agoYou have to read the posts and then put them in order yourself. I see these a lot and I’m still only ever like 90% sure I’m ordering them right. The other commenter is right, its a stupid way to list a chain of events considering its out of order and doesn’t even start with “1”.
I don’t think I will ever figure out the order to read these things.
Just… Why? Wouldn’t you want it to be formatted in a way that’s immediately obvious what order to read them?
I used bluesky lately (which i guess uses the same format?) and it looks like so because we are viewing a reply(3) to a post (2) that cite another post (1)
Thanks. I hate it.
So convenient.
Same
Genuine question: what’s confusing about this post?
There are some that are confusingly structured, but this one should be quite obvious
Obvious would be top to bottom. You know, like how every human reads.
For replies, yes. And that is the case. But the first one is a quote, not a reply
And it makes sense to put the reply before the thing they’re replying to.
You have to read the posts and then put them in order yourself. I see these a lot and I’m still only ever like 90% sure I’m ordering them right.
The other commenter is right, its a stupid way to list a chain of events considering its out of order and doesn’t even start with “1”.