I’m atheist, but I’ve been interested in religion in general for quite some time.
From what I know, it’s that you have to genuinely have remorse for the bad things you’ve done and then Jesus will forgive you. It your remorse is fake, Jesus won’t forgive.
You are welcome. I only know these subs because I frequent them but I think if you search deep enough and ignoring any community that has reddit in its name, you will find good content. 😁
As I see it Google and others are going to have a hard if not impossible time to incorporate the fediverse, and the fact that the same content can exist on multiple servers.
So I’m working on a search engine specifically build, for Lemmy at least. Where it’ll take you to whatever your preferred instance is when tapping on a search result.
I hope to have a MVP up and running in a few more days.
Yep and I’m one of them. Go look me up on Reddit and I think I have maybe 20 posts over the 14+ years I was on the site. …joined Lemmy and immediately got frustrated that I couldn’t find anything. So I figured I take a crack at it. Especially since I couldn’t see how Google would ever be able to link me to my instance. Let alone make it easy to search the entire fediverse without having to write out every possible site, with new ones popping up every day.
Imagine your network card is a house. That house has an address (IP address in this case) and to get into the house you need doors (ports). The house is pretty big so it has exactly 65,535 doors (ports). But because the owner of the house is not insane, most of the doors are locked (firewall).
When something communicates with you (or you with something), you use a port. For example when you open a webpage, your browser sends a request to the server on port 80 or 443 (80 for http, 443 for https). Those are standardized ports which have a well-defined meaning, but in general you only need the client (browser, app, whatever) and server to use the same port for the service.
Witcher 3. They very well combined open world with story telling, with tons of side quests, many of which affect the story. The characters aren’t one dimensional. For example Bloody Barron is a low life, but also draws sympathy as he pays for his sins from the past. The world is also unforgiving, many times you have to make a decision between shitty option and even shit tier option. The graphics and characters are also very detailed. All of that creates a great atmosphere.
If you haven’t played it, you should give it a try.
E-Mail is a federated standard, so in that sense every mail provider is part of the fediverse.
I think you are confusing fediverse with non profit and/or open source
If that is your question than yes there are alternatives out there. For example murena, the organisation behind the degoogled android fork /e (more information)
Love the way you worked this against HR. I had a situation kind of like yours once where we got a per diem daily for a hotel and one meal. The company let us keep the leftover money from the per diem until they hired a new manager that insisted we turn in the extra (it wasn't much maybe $5-25). Fine, we all started getting more expensive hotel rooms and spending the rest on food using every cent they gave us. . After about 2 years the guy who made us turn in the leftover money left and we went back to being able to keep the extra money.
I had a P card and would expense food on the road, so no per diem to worry about. I didn’t travel super often, so I would use this opportunity to treat myself on the company dime, choosing food and drink that often went beyond the limits of what we were allowed to get. So I would just pick whatever the fuck I wanted and tell my server/bartender that I was gonna be splitting my solo check: $X on company card, everything else including tip on my personal card. I’d get whiskey or beer or wine and steak or lamb or something like that. I would wind up with excellent meals for like $10 out of pocket. But because I rarely traveled, my company mileage and fuel costs were like 5% of everybody else’s in my district, so my monthly expense reports were almost always under $1k (usually more like $300) while everybody else was routinely $5-10k. So thankfully, nobody was dumb enough to give me a slam dunk malicious compliance story haha.
I'd have to imagine that Meta would be locked within their own little bubble. I find it hard to believe that many of the current instances out there wouldn't immediately opt to defederate from Meta out of principle. I don't think it'd be difficult to find a community that's blocked all interaction with Meta.
Meta plans to fedi with activitypub so I doubt that they’re trying to be a closed island. They are probably trying to come into this space to disrupt and destroy. All of fedi needs to cut them out right away.
AT&T is the best known example. They supressed innovation for decades, buying up or squashing anything that posed a threat to their monopoly. A phone bought in 1920 wasn't that different to a phone used in 1980. Judging by what happened when their monopoly was abolished, if it hadn't been for AT&T we'd have had the internet in 1960.
People have no clue about how detrimental these (quasi-)monopolies are for technogical innovation.
Companies like facebook, microsoft and google are actively preventing innovation not furthering it. They've become so big, they no longer have a vested interest in things changing too much, so they squash anything new.
Corporate vampires, undermining democracy, hurting the planet, and actively hindering progress. Fuck 'em.
if it hadn't been for AT&T we'd have had the internet in 1960.
There is no world in which the DoD declassifies packet switching, invented in the late 60s, and opens that up into the world. This work was essential to making ARPANET, which was the first interconnected network that we can call useful internet, which was only open to the few academics and military institutions that worked on what was later known as DARPA projects. There is no putting this on Ma Bell as a reason for us not having internet in the 60s.
Embrace, extend, extinguish is a very particular kind of monopolistic behavior. you're just listing people buying out their competitors. which to be clear, is also bad.
Embrace, extend, extinguish is when you have an open standard, which a company nominally embraces, and then adds unique features to their version that only interoperates with those using their product. Apple and SMS is a current example, since their reactions only work on iPhone. the Wikipedia article has plenty of examples from Microsoft. it's also quite likely that it's exactly what Facebook plans to do with activitypub.
The real risk isn’t really Meta, or Reddit, or whatever coming in and shitting on everything, but rather the same thing that happened on Reddit: upvote bots, bought and paid for mods, communities that get astroturfed by corporations with fake reviews/“questions” about if a cool new product is, in fact, cool/“hey i just found this thing!” posts and so on.
Those aren’t as immediately obviously toxic as lemmy.facebook.com would be, but they’re still a corrupting influence that degrades the experience for everyone, and they do it in a way that’s less obvious to a lot of people because I mean, is it just a random person, or is it a paid-for shillbot?
Still, have to be careful of Meta federating their piles of users, but it’s not really the risk that’s likely to happen in the short term as much as “social media marketers” shitting things up the way they shit up everything they get anywhere near.
Agreed. Meta’s (or any other corporate entity) strategy will most likely involve paying off mods or admins for their influence, allowing undercover ads, bots, etc
“mutually beneficial” and “parasitic” are mutually exclusive realities. “Mutually beneficial” means “you benefit and I benefit”, while “parasitic” means “I benefit, and you lose out”. It is impossible to be both at the same time.
In the complex web of biological and ecological interactions, there’s an intriguing concept known as parasitic mutualism. This term describes relationships that, at first glance, seem parasitic, but upon closer examination, reveal indirect benefits to the host organism, thus incorporating elements of both parasitism and mutualism.
Consider the relationship between humans and trees as an example. At first glance, it could appear parasitic. Humans often exploit trees for their resources, leading to deforestation, habitat destruction, and significant harm to the tree population. We extract wood for construction, burn wood for heat, and use tree-derived products in countless areas of life, all of which can negatively impact trees.
However, there’s another side to this relationship that bears a striking resemblance to mutualism. Trees provide a multitude of benefits to humans: they produce oxygen, absorb carbon dioxide, offer shade and shelter, provide food and raw materials, and even contribute to our mental wellbeing. Conversely, humans can also provide benefits to trees. We plant and cultivate trees, protect them within parks and reserves, and manage forests for sustainable growth. We care for urban trees, providing water, nutrients, and protection against pests and diseases.
Therefore, while the immediate interaction might seem parasitic, the broader context reveals elements of mutual benefit. This relationship between humans and trees illustrates how the seemingly contradictory notions of parasitism and mutualism can coexist within the intricate complexity of our natural ecosystems. The relationship is not purely one or the other but can transition between these states based on the specific circumstances and perspectives considered.
So, basically, what you’re saying is that sometimes, if you do only a cursory glance, you can see relationships that are parasitic; however, if you do a more in-depth analysis, you find that they’re mutually beneficial.
You know what that means? It means that you were completely fucking wrong when you called that relationship “parasitic”. It means that doing your due diligence ruled your earlier evidence incorrect. It means that what you thought was “parasitic” is actually mutually beneficial. It means that “parasitic” and “mutually beneficial” are two completely different fucking things.
Yes. That is precisely what I’m arguing. They are a contradiction of terms. Mutualism is when both organisms prosper from their relationship. Parasitism is when one organism prospers at the expense of the other. There is zero overlap between those two things. If both organisms are prospering at least a little, that is mutualism. If only one organism is prospering, that is parasitism.
Like, am I taking crazy pills here? Or are you just stupid?
Happy to be labelled stupid. But yeh. Dunno what pills you’re taking.
Your grasp of the basic definitions of parasitism and mutualism is great 👍, but it seems you’re refusing to acknowledge the complexities and nuances of biological relationships.
These are not static, black-and-white definitions. Nature isn’t a simple dichotomy of “mutualism here, parasitism there”. It’s a continuum of interactions that evolve and change with conditions.
Consider the cleaner fish as an example. It’s an illustration of facultative mutualism. The fish provides a service by removing parasites from a host fish—a clear case of mutualism. But what happens when the cleaner fish starts taking bites of the host’s flesh, causing harm? Suddenly, this mutualistic interaction turns parasitic.
If the fish continues cleaning parasites, then it is still mutualistic. If the “host” benefits from the relationship overall, then it is mutualistic. If it doesn’t benefit, and is actively harmed by the relationship, then it is parasitic.
The conversation seems to be veering into a game of semantics rather than addressing the biological complexity at hand.
The point isn’t about rigidly sticking to one label or another based on each individual interaction; it’s about acknowledging that the relationship can fluctuate based on various conditions. Therefore, there’s value in having a label that encapsulates this variability, like ‘facultative mutualism’.
‘Facultative mutualism’ doesn’t deny the presence of mutualistic or parasitic interactions but acknowledges that the relationship isn’t strictly one or the other. It can fluctuate between the two extremes based on different circumstances, and there’s utility in having a term that covers this variability.
You know what? That is fair. You’re right - I was engaging in a purely semantics argument, and I’m sorry about that. It was dumb, and also assholish of me to assume that you didn’t know what the fuck you were talking about and were just pulling things out of thin air. I see the point that it is useful to define relationships on a spectrum with fully parasitic at one end, and fully mutually beneficial at the other.
kbin.life
Active