[ryukafalz]

> if x>y then your system isn't showing you enough

We've grown used to having a practically infinite amount of things presented to us all the time, but I've come to believe recently that limiting the amount of posts you see can be a fine (and maybe healthier) choice. There's value in being able to say "I'm caught up, I'm done", it can be a natural stopping point.

I'm not as good about limiting myself like this as I would like to be, but it is a goal of mine.

[PaulHoule]

The total amount of content available is y>x.

Some arbitrary process has to reduce the 1,000,000,000 pieces of content produced today to maybe 10 or 100 you can handle.

The very concept of "news" ("fake news" is bad because it is news not because it is fake) is an act of violence against the fabric of reality because a huge number of things happened today, but CNN reported the same 10 of them 100 times. They could maybe cover 1000 different news stories (still a fraction of maybe 100,000 things that happened) but that's a non-starter because someone who watched the network at 3pm would have a totally different impression than someone who watched it at 5pm.

[beej71]

> Some arbitrary process has to reduce the 1,000,000,000 pieces of content produced today to maybe 10 or 100 you can handle.

In my case, I'm the process that does the reduction by subscribing to specific feeds. (Not sure if that's "arbitrary", but I could see it argued either way.)

I admit I miss some content that I would probably like to see. :) But that's just life how it's always been.

As my wife put it, "You don't have enough years in your life to read all the good books, so stop wasting time with bad ones." That's how I think of it. A handful of high-quality, low-volume feeds is great. (But I also follow HN and my curated Lemmy feed, so I get some of the firehose.)

The only "news" I have in my feed is local news. Any interesting national news hits HN or Lemmy.

Again, that's just me. I respect your different usage pattern.