But they can use some other instance. With centralized platforms the issue is that they want to do business everywhere. Russia threatened to arrest Google employees in Moscow, for instance. Even without such threats, they want to have access to local markets. That isn't a concern for some instance in Ireland that is supported by donations.
AI and NFT are not even close. Almost every person I know uses AI, and nobody I know used NFT even once. NFT was a marginal thing compared to AI today.
It's a common dictionary, which is probably not very good in this context. I think it would be more appropriate to refer to ISTQB, as it is likely the most relevant source when it comes to software testing and failures:
Human beings make errors (mistakes), which produce defects (faults, bugs), which in turn may result in failures. Humans make errors for various reasons, such as time pressure, complexity of work products, processes, infrastructure or interactions, or simply because they are tired or lack adequate training
What costs money is testing phases, including a lab to hold and propogate immortal cell lines and later production lines to create enough doses for thousands of human trials.
Thank you. These arguments are always hard to read. Sure, small labs are where it usually starts, but without enormous and risky investments, we would never have the drugs we have today. Most of these investments fail miserably, so one successful drug must cover the costs of ten unsuccessful ones. Nobody would do that if their IP weren't protected. It's more about reputation than facts when it comes to this topic.
Sure. It's better to develop this habit and use them automatically, without thinking. Sometimes there are no cars around, but pedestrians want to know your intentions too. And even if you don't see anyone, it doesn't mean there's nobody around.
Why did it take six months to resolve the issue? What steps did you take, how did they respond? Serious claims require proper explanation at the very least.
Otherwise, you’ll only attract people who are migrating from one service to another(and doing a 1:1 swap of their communities) and not reach the general audience. A lot of hobbies or communities I’ve joined were because of someone else mentioning it in a different but related community.
I don't see how we contradict each other. I didn't say we shouldn't create general communities. My point was that we don't necessarily need to wait for a visible demand in a general community because it might never manifest itself for smaller things, although people might be silently looking for them.
A good example would be !formula1@lemmy.world. I don't remember seeing anything about Formula 1 outside of this community, yet it exists, and people have some discussions.
I was also thinking about !flightsim@lemmyfly.org and !xplane@lemmy.world. Theoretically, the chain should look like this: general discussion -> gaming -> flightsim -> xplane. In practice, the last two are so small that it's hard to imagine them manifesting in a general discussion about games. The example of Baldur's Gate 3 is way too simplistic given how enormously popular that game is.
Both flightsim communities are practically dead. Does that mean they shouldn't exist and that they can't grow without notable demand elsewhere? I don't know. I want to try and test that hypothesis by adding content. I just know from my experience that when I'm searching for a niche community and see it's dead, I drop it. But if there's even minimal activity, I might subscribe and participate.
2 girls 1 british food