We talked about the fact that this is truth without consensus.
That’s the whole point.
Discussion
but wikipedia has a kind of consensus... there is admins
it's really a fool's errand, but carry on
Dude, that’s the point. In my implementation there is no consensus and there is no canonical entry.
dude, you don't know jack about distributed systems, or even discrete mathematics and why this will be so overloaded with jackasses reediting their articles to their viewpoint when other jackasses reedit it to their viewpoint...
have you even thought about how to keep a cap on that? are you going to prune the database of old entries or ratelimit them?
also you are a "dude blablablablabla" guy as well as all the other things
i had almost started to think you were not psychotic but you proved me wrong
Hahaha glad you confirmed your bias! 😎
my bias that i find people who use weasel words and coercive "friend" expressions to pretend they win arguments because they actually didn't think about the stupid shit they just babbled?
no, that is precisely me embarrassing you for being loud about dumb ideas and don't worry i have had this happen to me many times that's why i know it's good for you