I wonder if you could create a whole website who's sole purpose is just a route your Twitter through it, and place all the Twitter logos with Mastodon logos and replace any reference to Twitter with mastodon. Then they would just be posting to twitter, and what they wouldn't be able to see the name and they would have the perfect Mastodon that they've always wanted.
I recall around 2008, a lot of companies were complaining that financial regulations in Canada didn't allow "innovative" Fintech. They said we needed more flexibility. Seems to me flexibility is the flexibility to run comple scams...
Along the same lines, I think a lot of people liked the old Star Trek and Star Trek TNG and DS9 (and yes, to an extent even Voyager and maybe Enterprise but I never really saw that one) because one of the big parts of the show is that the people on the screen are virtuous but not magically so. Big parts of the show were people sitting around talking about what is right because it isn't always immediately apparent, and depending on how you approach the problem you could end up with completely different answers to that question.
Contrast with today's media which unfortunately reflects today's culture. If there are questions about the virtue of an action, they're superficial rather than complex, and usually what is right is treated as black and white and self-evident, rather than grey and ambiguous.
In some ways, I suspect this is a negative consequence of a post-world war 2 culture. Because that one war was relatively straightforward where one side was seen as atrocious and the other basically wasn't, that became the mythologized. A few straightforward stories aren't bad, but when that is the default every time and we stop questioning ourselves it's a path to decadence.
Contrast with today's media which unfortunately reflects today's culture. If there are questions about the virtue of an action, they're superficial rather than complex, and usually what is right is treated as black and white and self-evident, rather than grey and ambiguous.
In some ways, I suspect this is a negative consequence of a post-world war 2 culture. Because that one war was relatively straightforward where one side was seen as atrocious and the other basically wasn't, that became the mythologized. A few straightforward stories aren't bad, but when that is the default every time and we stop questioning ourselves it's a path to decadence.
Watching homeward bound, that movie where the two dogs and the cat end up going on an adventure to try to find their masters.
One moment that made me really think was a scene where they finally got on the path to going home. Basically, they found a little girl and had a choice at that point: They could leave the little girl, or they could help the little girl find the adults, but helping the little girl had a good chance they'd be sent to the pound as strays.
In the movie, they chose to save the little girl despite the risk because it was the right thing to do.
It's hard to describe, but I felt like that moment is something we rarely see in movies anymore today: Instead of being the designated good guys and getting everything because they are the designated protaganist, they actually do a thing that is purely altruistic and carries significant risk of loss for themselves, showing virtue when it's not the best thing to do for them, but it's the right thing to do. The story then rewards that virtuous behavior with progress, and even though it's not logically sensible, it is emotionally resonant -- they *deserved* to get what they wanted because they're good, and so when their selfless deeds are unexpectedly rewarded, it packs an emotional punch.
I think this is what a lot of critics mean when they accuse modern protagonists of being unlikable. They get what they want because they are the designated protagonists, but they don't display active virtue besides just being generally inoffensive.
One moment that made me really think was a scene where they finally got on the path to going home. Basically, they found a little girl and had a choice at that point: They could leave the little girl, or they could help the little girl find the adults, but helping the little girl had a good chance they'd be sent to the pound as strays.
In the movie, they chose to save the little girl despite the risk because it was the right thing to do.
It's hard to describe, but I felt like that moment is something we rarely see in movies anymore today: Instead of being the designated good guys and getting everything because they are the designated protaganist, they actually do a thing that is purely altruistic and carries significant risk of loss for themselves, showing virtue when it's not the best thing to do for them, but it's the right thing to do. The story then rewards that virtuous behavior with progress, and even though it's not logically sensible, it is emotionally resonant -- they *deserved* to get what they wanted because they're good, and so when their selfless deeds are unexpectedly rewarded, it packs an emotional punch.
I think this is what a lot of critics mean when they accuse modern protagonists of being unlikable. They get what they want because they are the designated protagonists, but they don't display active virtue besides just being generally inoffensive.
I've been really impressed with Rex Murphy's writing as of late, though I don't know what that means exactly.
I think this is totally correct.
The actual unemployment rate is at record highs if you also look at the labour participation rate. Used to be like 90% of people were working, now it's like 60%. That means a huge number of people are consuming productivity but not producing anything themselves.
The actual unemployment rate is at record highs if you also look at the labour participation rate. Used to be like 90% of people were working, now it's like 60%. That means a huge number of people are consuming productivity but not producing anything themselves.
Although I'm on the record saying some pretty mean things about Elon Musk, the fact is he's following the tech startup playbook to the letter.
"Fail fast" -- isn't this what he's doing? Making big changes immediately and iterating rather than bothering to wait until things are perfectly planned? Arguably it's a better strategy for a website than a car manufacturer or a spaceship company or a medical implant manufacturer.
"Fail fast" -- isn't this what he's doing? Making big changes immediately and iterating rather than bothering to wait until things are perfectly planned? Arguably it's a better strategy for a website than a car manufacturer or a spaceship company or a medical implant manufacturer.
I think their automated moderation systems would be just fine sitting before the activitypub interface and allowing or blocking incoming posts, so moderation probably wouldn't be a huge problem, it's just more stuff to moderate.
At that point the big thing would be selling users on a better UX to justify the advertising and tracking. With a capital on-hand, dedicated people working on it, and all the other perks of being a big corp, I think they could make the argument successfully for a lot of customers. It wouldn't be unprecedented.
The big problem is that if they succeed, then it's probable they come in and break everyone else's toys.
One thing I was thinking about though is that federation doesn't really make much sense for these companies if you believe their numbers. The Fediverse has about 6M users, and many of those users are unplatformable for a corporation. Why reach out to such a tiny number of users if you're claiming to have 100M users on your platform aline?
At that point the big thing would be selling users on a better UX to justify the advertising and tracking. With a capital on-hand, dedicated people working on it, and all the other perks of being a big corp, I think they could make the argument successfully for a lot of customers. It wouldn't be unprecedented.
The big problem is that if they succeed, then it's probable they come in and break everyone else's toys.
One thing I was thinking about though is that federation doesn't really make much sense for these companies if you believe their numbers. The Fediverse has about 6M users, and many of those users are unplatformable for a corporation. Why reach out to such a tiny number of users if you're claiming to have 100M users on your platform aline?
Thinking about it, it's possible I've been talking to what I thought the post was about rather than what it actually was about, and that was unfairly tilted by the barrage of "The fediverse will never be a good platform because it isn't enough like big tech" posts and I got annoyed, combined with posting too early before my coffee kicked in.
Felt good to write as a "take that!" to the people who are doing that, but it's possible I misread things.
Felt good to write as a "take that!" to the people who are doing that, but it's possible I misread things.
I'm certainly open to find out I'm overreacting and would happily accept it if I'm proven wrong.
It just seems to me that it's like aristocrats leaving the castle and complaining that the masses in the countryside are out there living like barbarians -- "They don't even have a single brigade of knights guarding their homes! Can you imagine!"
It just seems to me that it's like aristocrats leaving the castle and complaining that the masses in the countryside are out there living like barbarians -- "They don't even have a single brigade of knights guarding their homes! Can you imagine!"
It's sort of a dumb criticism. The fediverse has the most marginalized groups on it. It has the groups that have been kicked off of all the big Tech sites. It has the people whose only opportunity to feel safe on the internet was to roll their own servers and build their own.
Seems to me that your complaint is that the most privileged people in the world today can't come over and exercise their privilege. They can't get special treatment. They can't pull a big handle and have the people that they hate exiled.
I've been seeing this criticism a lot. I think it's a valid one. It's a very good reason that all of those people who come to this open source distributed platform and aren't privileged should take that to heart, and they should return to Big Tech, where they can continue their privileged life as one of the special people. And when the marketing departments decide that they aren't special people anymore, history show repeat itself, and perhaps then when they are truly marginalized they can come back.
Seems to me that your complaint is that the most privileged people in the world today can't come over and exercise their privilege. They can't get special treatment. They can't pull a big handle and have the people that they hate exiled.
I've been seeing this criticism a lot. I think it's a valid one. It's a very good reason that all of those people who come to this open source distributed platform and aren't privileged should take that to heart, and they should return to Big Tech, where they can continue their privileged life as one of the special people. And when the marketing departments decide that they aren't special people anymore, history show repeat itself, and perhaps then when they are truly marginalized they can come back.
2 factors:
1. Exercise increases your basal metabolic rate so that increases your energy use
2. There's a margin of error much larger than 1 pound just in the amount of food waste or water you retain. I only checked once a week when I was losing lots of weight because even then the amount of waste in my system would be large compared to the rate of change of weight due to fat loss.
1. Exercise increases your basal metabolic rate so that increases your energy use
2. There's a margin of error much larger than 1 pound just in the amount of food waste or water you retain. I only checked once a week when I was losing lots of weight because even then the amount of waste in my system would be large compared to the rate of change of weight due to fat loss.
Yeah, far from perfect, as I said.
It works for me, but a lot of people might find the gaps unacceptable.
It works for me, but a lot of people might find the gaps unacceptable.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
>Tfw you resist the irresistible deal
>Tfw you resist the irresistible deal
Matrix-conduit is a new homeserver implemented from scratch. It is far from perfect, but I've found it to be comparable to ejabbered on my vastly underpowered server in terms of resource usage.
I saw a post on xmpps Lemmy saying they'll have matrix support imminently in their commercial product, so presumably there'll be support in the open source version eventually.
"playstation?" No this is a Nintendo switch
"Playstation!" No this is a PC
"PlayStation!" No this is a cell phone
"NINTENDO?" No this is a playstation
"Playstation!" No this is a PC
"PlayStation!" No this is a cell phone
"NINTENDO?" No this is a playstation