Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)P
Posts
3
Comments
1591
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • I agree with your overall opinion, but I just don't agree with how the problem was presented. Your statement, with more of the surrounding context:

    ... lemmy.ml, works more like that than you realize. e.g. a change is soon going to give lemmy.ml veto power in what communities are allowed to be acknowledged as existing to new instances ...

    The key words here are "allowed to be acknowledged as existing". Not acknowledging a community's existence means not federating it. .world does that with db0's piracy community because of EU laws, and it's basically an instance-imposed community ban. Pyfed has/had a hard-coded denylist of community names in the source code that stopped them from being federated, and the result was none of the instances running unmodified Piefed were able to access them.

    I wouldn't have an issue with if you said a change in Lemmy "gives lemmy.ml exclusive control over promoting what communities show up as popular in other instances". They don't have the ability to censor the existence of communities that go against their views just the ability to censor their promotion. That's a big problem, but it's not as catastrophically bad as them having the power to censor the actual content on other instances.

  • Does it do multiple monitors stress-free too? Thanks!

    I'm not the same guy you were talking to, but if you use Wayland, multi-monitor should work without any issues.

  • I dislike centralization as much as the next person and have my issues with lemmy.ml being allowed to control anything outside its own instance, but I think the way you phrased it is misleading.

    what communities are allowed to be acknowledged as existing to new instances

    That suggests .ml has the ability to prevent communities from being acknowledged at all by other instances, while the anti-feature is actually about them being the sole source of truth for what counts as a "popular" community.

    They can censor and curate that list to their authoritarian-apologist desires—which is a problem—but it only affects discoverability when browsing for popular communities, and instance admins can (and should) turn that off.

  • Your source is 3 months old and doesn't back up your claims.

    what does “hardcode lemmy.ml as a source to pre-fetch popular communities” mean in practice.

    It is an attempt to pre-populate new instances with some popular communities which is seen as a way to improve discoverability. I find the general concept of using “popularity” for that to be somewhat problematic, but the main issue I have with the actual implementation is that it uses lemmy.ml as the source of truth for that, and there is no way to change that*.

  • Countries with affordable health care tend to have heavy regulations and use taxes to help fund the system. MAGA would probably riot over "socialism" and "guvurnment overreach"

  • He is obsessed with windmills and thinks they are bad.

    Donald TrumpDon a l d t r u m p

    Sort the letters...Don a d l m p r t u

    Erase part of the l...Don ad i mpr t u

    Flip the ad by 180 degrees and mirror it...Don qu i mpr t u

    Squish the mpr...Don qu i (*) t u

    Unsquish it back...Don qu i xo t u

    Substitute sounds of excitement with boredom...Don qu i xo t eDon Quixote

    How did we not see this before?It all makes sense now.

  • THANK YOU. You get it.

  • "After a brief investigation over mimosas and a cheese platter, we have found credible evidence that Good was a member of the Alphabet Mafia. The agent was justified in his use of lethal force against a dangerous criminal. No charges will be filed."

  • Would they even get that bonus as cash? The cynic in me thinks there's a missing asterisk saying "in equivalent benefits", where the benefits are just health insurance and something stupid like a gym membership or subsidizing part of the price when buying a new American™ car.

    That would at least make it less of a slap in the face to the teachers who are actually trying to make the country a better place.

  • As I said in both my original comment and my follow-up replies to other people, the point is to create a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation which would have real consequences for trying to suppress. With bittorrent and IPFS, there's zero consequences for them to try other than wasting their time and own money.

    The correct approach is to use all 3 for redundancy.

  • I mentioned that, and yes, that's the point. If they do that, they destroy trust in it. If they destroy trust in it, they destroy its value. The people they actually care about—the multimillionaires and billionaires—hold some as part of their portfolios and are going to be very unhappy about that.

    It's a lose-lose scenario. They either leave it up, or they make an enemy out of their backers.

  • Or do all of the above? It ain't limited to one choice.

    Entangling the destruction of the list with the destruction of cryptocurrency itself isn't a bad thing either. If they impulsively destroy the value of bitcoin, they hurt the people whos opinions they actually care about: the 0.01%.

  • Historical context, delivery, and handling.

    HUP—hang up—is sent to indicate the TTY is closed.TERM—terminate— is sent by request.

    What happens when received is usually up to the process. Most of them just leave the defaults, which is to exit.

  • Step 1: Make personal computing unaffordable.Step 2: Rent "personal" computing as a service.Step 3: Boil the frog by continuously restricting what people can do with the service.Step 4: Wait for local computing to die.Step 5: Stop LLMs from running on rented computers.

    Hardware won't last forever. Once they have full control over what people can do with computers, they have full control over the information people are exposed to. LLMs won't help with that if the only ones that are accessible to the layman are sanitized and censored.

  • It's not entirely a stupid idea.

    Block-chains are an append-only ledger where each block includes a cryptographic hash of the previous block, where new blocks are accepted by quorum across all independent nodes. The only way to fuck with the ledger to erase history would be to either exploit an undisclosed flaw in the cryptographic hash, or have enough nodes to convince the every other node that their version of history is wrong and that this fake version of history is the only truth.

    Burning an undisclosed cryptographic vulnerability for this would be an extremely stupid (but plausible) idea that would make the vulnerability worthless to them in the future. Even if they didn't have to burn a vulnerability to break the block-chain's system of trust by rewriting history, they just proved that bitcoin is untrustworthy—which would immediately destroy its financial value.

    What might actually be even better, though, is that multimillionaires, billionaires, and the United States government itself hold a bunch of cryptocurrency. The former for investment/tax evasion/laundering, and the latter in seized assets. On top of that, many criminals and hostile foreign governments hold Bitcoin, too.

    Encoding the list in the Etherium or Bitcoin block-chains would make removing it extremely self-destructive for the fascists who don't want the list to be public. It becomes a lose-lose situation for them.

    A bittorrent magnet link or IPFS would be less wasteful, but they lack the self-destructive disincentive that would make them think twice about even trying to stop it.

  • As of now, total is 800 k.

  • Someone anonymously dropped $5,000 as a donation. It's always nice to see that some people are using their much-higher-than-average disposable income for the good of others.

  • It's hard to keep track of which opinion belongs to Murdoch and which belongs to Miller.

    Fixed that for you.

  • Didn't one of his other videos conclude with something about an object falling infinitely though portals causes them to accumulate opposing positive and negative masses and eventually turn into a black hole?