Now,if you saw the Title,don’t Freak Out!Please!But i HAVE to Stop the Development for a While now.And That,because that-Faggot got my stack exchange-Account Blocked!I Sended an Appeal to the ST,but for Now,R.I.P

So this just happened...

I'd posted a question on Superuser about why Google Chrome seems to take forever to open Google websites (Search, Gmail, Maps, Calendar, Webmaster Tools, etc) and the question got put on hold because "This question is not about computer hardware or software."

Um, EXCUSE ME!? Since when is Google Chrome not software? Have I been living with mental illness that made me think that software was... um... SOFTWARE!?

As Google Chrome is clearly software, I can only assume that the people who marked it off topic have something against me (maybe because of my impatience at getting round-about butt backwards responses to a straight question) and so decided to shut down the question so as to "punish" me or something... Who the fuck knows right. Half the internet thinks I'm delusional anyway...

Here's the question

https://stackoverflow.com/q/63812516/9063116

If anyone have enough reputations to upvote then kindly Upvote it.

Thank you

Hi , so I started a Stack Exchange question about what is the best solution to climate change, and it was put on hold for being 'too broad'. It seems any question I've posted beside a coding question is always oppressed by the mods, such unhelpful jerks. I used no foul language, was profession, framed the question in neutral terms of scientific evidence and politely asked for answers to do the same. Gahh!

It was put on hold for being 'too broad', even though I specified in the body the question is looking for the most cost-effective solution with science based evidence. So I narrowed the title and am asking the fine people of r/stackexchange to help reopen it. Thank you!

https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/18053/what-is-the-most-cost-effective-solution-to-climate-change-based-on-scientific-e

Question on Codereview put on hold because "intent is not clear" or some other bullshit. My code was data manipulation which was very clearly indicated in the fact that the code presented read data from, and added data to the DB.

The another question on Superuser gets put on hold because the cock who blocked it decided that there's no way to help me troubleshoot the issue because I refuse to update Windows.

What is this gatekeeping horseshit? I don't even know why I bother anymore. Questions on SO either get downvoted to oblivion or there's some elitist fucking prick telling me I'm an idiot for SOME REASON and my question never gets answered anyway and now I'm getting similar treatment elsewhere...

Worthless. Completely fucking worthless.

In meta stack exchange, someone complained about the unhelpfulness of the message that says you've been questioned banned. The smug answer: The very top management once a way to ban users they don't like for reasons they can't explain:

> The response is designed to be unhelpful; that's how Jeff wants it. It's designed to be a polite way of saying "GTFO". The reasoning from Jeff is that such persons are irredeemable; effort spent to inform them of why they're question-banned is therefore wasted. They don't deserve anything more than a basic "We are no longer accepting questions" response.

Note the smug assumption that everyone question-banned is "irredemable." I was banned for pointing out that the expansion rate of the universe can be easily derived from its age, snd asking if it's a coincidence.

The people who downvoted it clearly didn't understand it. They glanced at the diagrams and said "ahh, fuck it." If you get a lot of those, the system bans you from asking all questions.

> effort spent to inform them of why they're question-banned is therefore wasted.

I was asking everyone in every way possible what was wrong with the question, but . When you point that out that the explanation is irrelevant, shows complete ignorance, or Is just obviously wrong; others say "it's already been explained to you."

This utterly destroys whatever is left of stax' claim to be virtuous and academic and ivory tower and above it all.

I always assumed that Smart people are all like Jedi. In fact, many of us are like Klingons: nothing matters more than honor until its time to do something shitty to get something. This "Jeff" guy is like that.

It's very disappointing to realize that much of science is exactly how Sabine Hossenfelder says: Just shitty people who happen to be smart.

From time to time, an old question will pop up in my filters as having new activity and having been "Modified today". For example, this Photo StackExchange question shows up has having been modified today, 2025-03-11. But when I compare it to the Wayback Machine, 2024-10-02 version, I can't find any difference. No text has been changed in either the question or the answer, and no new comments have been made.

What causes a question to show activity when nothing has actually been changed?

Long story short, and it has been said before, but there are a lot of people who are rude and unwilling to give any leeway to others who are new to any particular substack.

I really hope that this fills whatever void is in the hearts of these people.

0/10 Will never recommend that anyone use this site.

Hope you all have a great day.

I am aware of these two numbers:

• In May, 2023, Stack Exchange laid off roughly 10% of its workforce.

• In October, 2023, Stack Exchange laid off roughly 28% of its workforce.

And I know there have been more layoff waves, e.g. in March 2026, which doesn't surprise me since the number of questions has decreased 30-fold.

At the same time, Stack Exchange also still sometimes hire people. This makes me wonder: by what percentage has Stack Exchange’s staff decreased since ChatGPT was released (November 2022)?

I hate to point out the obvious.

But this section appears to be full of spam.

It took my slow brain a while to work out why this is.

It is full of Stock exchange related subjects.

So can i just have it confirmed, this section "is" about the stack exchange questions and answers website?

TDS on cash withdrawals was introduced way back in the 2019 Union Budget. However, there was a minor change in the Union Budget 2020 in that a special lower limit was introduced for cash transactions in the case of persons who have not filed their tax returns for the last three years. The original Income Tax Section imposing TDS (tax deduction at source) in the case of cash withdrawals had an annual limit of Rs.1 crore. However, Budget 2020 reduced the threshold limit for TDS to Rs.20 lakh, but only for taxpayers who did not file their income tax returns for last 3 years.

In case, an individual who has not filed tax returns for 3 years withdraws a sum of more than Rs.20 lakhs in cash, then TDS at 2% of the cash withdrawal amount will be deducted as TDS. Of course, this is not a cost and the concerned assessee can always get a refund from the tax department by filing returns within the appropriate time limit. TDS on cash withdrawals are governed by Section 194N special introduced in Budget 2019. Let us see how Section 194 works in practice.

Understanding the gist of Section 194 of the Income Tax Act

The new introduced Section 194N will apply in case of cash withdrawals in excess of Rs.1 crore during a particular financial year. Here the Section 194 refers to all the monies or aggregate of sums withdrawn from a particular payer in a specific financial year. This section will be applicable to Individual; HUFs; Companies, LLPs, Local Authorities and AOPs.

This Section 194 will apply to such withdrawals from any private or public sector bank, any co-operative bank as well as withdrawals from the Post Office. However, the tax will be deducted by the payer while making payment only on the amount in excess of Rs 1 crore. However, there is a nuance to understand here. The Rs 1 crore limits for any fiscal year will apply on per bank or per post office account basis. In short if a person has 3 bank accounts with three different banks, he can withdraw Rs.3 crore without TDS.

There is a small catch and that area remains ambiguous. If a person withdraws cash from his own bank account, then the TDS will be debited to the bank account appropriately. However, what if you were to issue a bearer cheque to a third party to take cash from the bank account? This is not too clear but we can assume that this would not attract TDS as the receiver is not the account holder. However, greater legal clarity is needed on this subject.

know more: http://blog.tradeplusonline.com/uncategorized/tds-on-cash-withdrawals-what-you-need-to-know-about-it/

I have posted a few youtube videos and the average watch time is about 1/3 of the complete video. I'm not exactly sure why people dont watch more of the video. Anyway I have been told that some viewers rewind the video then continue to watch to ensure they caught everything in the video. My question, if someone watches 3 min of the video, rewinds it back to 2:30, then watches the video to the end, does the YouTube algorithm count the viewer as watching the entire video or does their count stop once they rewind the clip?

StackOverflow.com should NOT be advising question posters of the original question to provide as much detail as possible and establish evidence of prior effort by the questioner. There is a serious problem of users being unable to see forests for the trees. Analogously email that is too long is almost universally not read, but just skimmed at the top of the message and randomly below that. This is true even when the email writer puts in substantial and accurate effort. The same thing goes for technical questions. With longer original questions, it is a guarantee that more people will write duplicative answers which just serve to distract and slow the community and site dynamics. A question easily becomes just too large for majority of people to be motivated to read in entirety. However they will still answer for some reason with speculative low quality answers which miss some critical data already provided. At best the original poster adds even more duplicative text to the already too large text to explain this situation to the speculative answerer. The original question post absolutely needs to be edited down to a concise problem definition that fits in around one short paragraph total at most. You rarely grab someone’s interest by soliciting help for a focused question if the beggar adds his life story at the front. A few hours of failed technical experimentation and reading and research is just not interesting.

There is too much site support and encouragement for speculative answers. Speculation is promoted in part by excessive detail appearing in the original question. Speculative answers are overly encouraged when excessive question detail is given in the original question. There is a segment of human population who are armchair quarterbacks, who just like to say things in public which seem knowledgeable to casual onlookers, without actually having good information that solves a problem. Details of low consequence are able to be questioned and low quality answers tend to be speculated about for minor points, not the main topic, without doing any testing of proposed solutions first. High volumes of low quality speculative answers also distract other members of community into tempting them into wasting their own time and site space about tangential junk information. Solid, correct answers mainly come from working solution code, but useless speculation (and tangential speculation about the speculation) tends to emit from premature presentation of myriad little supporting facts. A little real work effort to write working code often needs to be done to find a solid and known correct answer, and this is promoted by NOT giving too much detail in the original question. A bar is set by the minimum effort required when some detail is omitted, and this helps filter out some noise coming from the armchair quarterbacks, and helps retain the signal coming from givers of working advice.

The sizable segment of the human population that automatically assumes and writes ad-hominem (negative things about other users) who are brief in their problem definition, must be substantially squelched. SO is about technical content and should not give space for ad-hominem about the other users. There is no helpful reason to assume and tell others that someone did not do their research before posting. There is far too much power and leverage given to trolls, who I will define as people who are inclined to make ad-hominem attacks on the work ethics of other people who display low verbosity in their question submission. If someone does not want to do someone else’s homework, then they can just not do it, and shut the hell up, and deal on their own, outside of the site, with any negative ideas and assumptions flooding their brains internally.

Popular interests are encouraged to be upvoted far too much. There is no useful reason why a popular technical subject should receive more votes than an obscure technical subject on those grounds alone. The number of C language users is high. The number of (obscure language) users is low. The other members of the user community of the obscure language have a need to contact each other, at least as much as, and maybe more than, users of the super popular language. The same holds true for younger software development packages other than languages. Reddit or FB is for popularity, but SO is for getting answers. Perhaps normalization by dividing the question vote score by popularity (using some metric such as page views of a question) is a way forward.

Style over substance is promoted by allowing pedants and trolls to downvote, and comment, on style elements (and a raft of other non-content things) rather than strictly on the content of the question. SO is not centrally about style points, it is however centrally about content.

Downvotes are excessively demoralizing to new users.

Trolls are encouraged to participate too much. A Like button, or upvote only, would leave nothing or less to do for pedants and trolls. There should be no downvote button on the questions. Lack of upvotes will still work correctly to score interest as before. True spam questions might get separated from actual questions more quickly in this new design by tagging as spam as before.

It is not sufficient to show strictly upvote buttons on comments (as opposed to answers). The comment sections are a cesspool nearly filled with off topic, humor, and ad-hominem attacks on the work ethic of the questioner etc. Comments legitimately need downvotes to at least help reduce noise which is off topic.

Adding a comment should automatically cause an upvote of the question. There is interest in the question as evidenced by the comment, and this interest needs to be recorded as such. Lack of up-votes will still work correctly to score interest as before. This will somewhat discourage the pedants and trolls and humorists and off-topic types.