

Yea, those are all points that I should have included in the bot, my apologies. I will propably make a public post for people to discuss and help me to refine the bot. Thank you for the feedback.
Yea, those are all points that I should have included in the bot, my apologies. I will propably make a public post for people to discuss and help me to refine the bot. Thank you for the feedback.
Items that are objectively considered bad are removed. This message is more intended to warn the users. I agree that I should rephrase the message.
Thank you for the feedback.
Yea, that sounds like a good idea. Thank you for the feedback (:
Seems like you guys really don’t like my bot, haha. Whoops, sorry. Will for now disable it and see how to proceed.
Bleep Bloop. When reading this source, please be critical. This source has been rated by MFBR as being of lower credibility. Report: Source detected: theguardian.com, BSFR ratubg: bias: left-center, credibility: medium-credibility, questionable: []. Thank you for being a part of !news :D (this action was taken automatically)
For more information you can look here: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/lgbtq-nation/
The current parameters for the bot to send this message are that the source is considered to have medium or low credibility or that the source’s reporting is considered low or very low. The message itself doesn’t mean that the post will face any moderation action, it’s just a notification to the community. I’m still working on this functionality, so any feedback is welcome (: (I am aware of the typos, fixing them right now)
Bleep Bloop. When reading this source, please be critical. This source has been rated by MFBR as being of lower credibility. Report: Source detected: thedailybeast.com, BSFR ratubg: bias: left, credibility: medium-credibility, questionable: []. Thank you for being a part of !news :D (this action was taken automatically)
Bleep Bloop. When reading this source, please be critical. This source has been rated by MFBR as being of lower credibility. Report: Source detected: lgbtqnation.com, BSFR ratubg: bias: left, credibility: medium-credibility, questionable: []. Thank you for being a part of !news :D (this action was taken automatically)
Bleep Bloop. When reading this source, please be critical. This source has been rated by MFBR as being of lower credibility. Report: Source detected: lgbtqnation.com, BSFR ratubg: bias: left, credibility: medium-credibility, questionable: []. Thank you for being a part of !news :D (this action was taken automatically)
Bleep Bloop. When reading this source, please be critical. This source has been rated by MFBR as being of lower credibility. Report: Source detected: lgbtqnation.com, BSFR rating: bias: left, credibility: medium-credibility, questionable: []. Thank you for being a part of !news :D (this action was taken automatically)
The law of “Jezus, every sane human knows to report that”
Yea that’s a valid concern. But if a new standard ever get’s invented that is clearly better the law can easily be switched. And if it doesn’t… USB-C is still more than fine.
Yea but that can be fixed by improving the current standard, not by changing the shape.
Previous connectors had inherent flaws. The USB-C connector is sturdy, is easy to use etc. But even if we had made the micro-usb connector the only legal connector, it wouldn’t have been the end of the world. Existing standards can be improved instead of making new shapes each time.
Why would the form factor of the connector need to be different to improve it?
As far as I understand, the Mac lineup don’t have screens, the IMacs are stationary and do have a screen, the MacBooks are the laptops.
Could you maybe edit your post to have it not be all caps?
The voyager app has that feature, I believe.
Having the app being the thing that makes something useful is a red flag. If the app/company dies your gadget is e-waste.