Germany (social.bund.de) and the EU (social.network.europa.eu) already have it. I think it's very likely that other governments, especially european ones, will start to do this.
With the internet being so dominated by american voices, I dont think a lot of people have fully appreciated the sentiment change in the higher levels of european governments. Sovereign control over their digital spaces is something that is actually mattering on the level of nation states. Its a way of thinking that is kind of new to most people, as we rarely think about the sovereign powers of nation states, and even less so in the context of the internet. But now were starting to do that again, and it actually matters.
ARD and ZDF too, probably just as significant because they’re some of the biggest media organisations in the world: ard.social/explore and zdf.social/about
With the internet being so dominated by american voices, I dont think a lot of people have fully appreciated the sentiment change in the higher levels of european governments.
Absolutely. I was on an instance, run by North Americans, that had blocked European Govt instances because they didn’t trust government agencies spying on them etc. Some German users picked up on this and voiced a lot of frustration over it. There was a clear cultural divide. Even more ironic, I think it was the German department of privacy or something to that effect.
Nonetheless, it was quite interesting to see a tension between the small hacker aspect of the fediverse and the “this is the new internet” aspect and how much the US dominated perspective probably completely missed the mark.
EDIT: European Govt from “European” to clarify I was referring to government run instances.
Well it was reflexive choice I think. American anti government sentiment without thinking through whether the instance or government department in question was providing a service that some would benefit from on the fediverse.
We’re afraid of all government spying, including our own. I just think most Americans don’t really understand that other governments, especially in the EU, have significantly better privacy laws and protections for foreigners than America has for its own citizens.
To riff on this a little bit further: its also visible in how little attention in the gazillion conversations about Threads is paid to the fact that the entirety of the EU cannot even access it yet due to the new DMA and DSA.
Or one of the articles I wrote that got relatively low traction, that was specificially about how all of the Nordic countries got an official recommendation to use ActivityPub for their governmental communications. I dont mind that some articles get less traction than others, but it does stand out when you consider how impactful such things are for the long term structure of the fediverse. Lots of EU governments are now talking about needing sovereign public digital spaces, and are actively looking how ActivityPub can help with that. And that matters way more than whatever Elons latest shenanigans are.
In a way, this gives me hope that the fediverse might actually survive in a way bigger capacity than XMPP did even if Threads/Meta manages to EEE a large part of the fediverse.
Yeah, I think theres quite a few reasons to be hopeful. Also why I personally am not very interested in comparisons to XMPP and EEE. To me, that refers to a different time on the internet, where corporations where way more interested in fighting an opensource threat. But times have changed, and for Big Tech, it seems to me they are way more worried about regulations than about opensource competitors.
Not to say that this automatically means that the fediverse will be a success, not at all, this shit is hard. But to properly judge what challenges await the fediverse, I think its more fruitful to look at what Big Tech is concerned by, and what governments are thinking about. And I see very little talk about EEE from those actors. Instead, its mainly focused on regulations, privacy, and sovereign power.
Oh don't get me wrong, I fully expect Meta to go EEE. That they're not talking about it in those terms makes sense, given that the Embrace part has barely started.
I just have a bit of hope that the fediverse might survive it better.
and thanks for the shoutout! I do need to update my bio and get proper accounts. For now just testing out the water a little bit, havent really fully decided on which server I want to pick. reason Im replying with 2 accounts is that federation between kbin.social and lemmy.ml specifically is still broken, couldnt even see your reply. Not sure how to approach that yet
Curiously enough I’ve been ranting in some replies about how “The Protocol” maybe requires too much coordination at a software level for its promises of a distributed social network to be taken at face value.
This issue incidentally seems like a prime issue. Like, just looking at it naively, would it not be reasonable that at some level the protocol has some checks built into it such that an instance either is or is not federating with another instance and determining whether that is the case or not is straight-forward?
The arbitrariness of a service called kbinbot being a whole instance’s federation request service and the ability to block that by accident without any more declarative data structures verifying or identifying whether federation is successful … that all smells like a bad system.
I’m starting to wonder if there’s something to my “concern” compared to other protocols (wish I knew enough to seriously examine it).
I’ll stop ranting now … glad lemmy.ml and kbin are connected again.
I’m pretty new to federation. What can I do with these two instances? Can I somehow follow them with my current account? Or do I have to create a separate account on both instances?
You can follow them from your already existing Mastodon (and maybe kbin?) account.
From my account on mastodon.online I just followed @beheerder as a test, and I’ve already been following @EU_Commission
For some reason my server couldn’t find users from the social.bund.de when I pasted the follow-link (like @Zoll )
By the way Mastodon has a very nice interface to subscribe to other instances. Like now when using when following the link in OPs post and opening a web browser, then clicking on a user and clicking follow, it gives the option to sign in to subscribe OR copy a link to subscribe from another instance . Then I just past that link in the search field in my Mastodon app (logged in to mastodon.online). Hopefully Lemmy will implement that “button to copy link to subscribe from other instance” soon
With the internet being so dominated by american voices,
Europe has to build something new that isn’t a big corp, that isn’t centralized. It has to find its own way, and the Fediverse model is a good beginning. It’s to show we can do something but in the European spirit.
With the internet being so dominated by american voices, I dont think a lot of people have fully appreciated the sentiment change in the higher levels of european governments.
Meanwhile, government and education are still completely (and happily, it seems) shackled to Microsoft and Google, of course.
Why not have a state-run instance on an open platform? It’s better than relying on a corporation’s platform. The government is ‘the people’ more than corporations are.
Surveillance? In what sense, here in particular. A bit confused. Also, it depends on the kind of private instance you mean, since this is private too, in the sense you cannot make accounts on it. What other benefit do they gain over people, using this over a corporate website?
It looks like a state government was creating their own mastodon instance which, when plugged into the rest, would give them surveillance and digital wire tapping powers that today they do not have?
Again, what can they tap or see into that they couldn’t before? All info on the other servers is public, that would be true for any federated server. I really don’t get how they’d get any more access to your data than another random person on the internet seeing your profile. They’re not making their own instance available to make accounts on, or enable users to post on it directly. You aren’t giving them any more details than you would if you had a Twitter account that was public. It is quite literally just for official government information dissemination without being locked behind rate limits.
True free market solutions inevitably lead to the people abiding by the rules of the rich and powerful.
Anything run by the government has to at the very least PRETEND to listen to people who don’t have a financial interest in the enshittification of every part of society.
Just the opposite, I would argue…the role of the state should be to keep a market free so that open & standard-based solutions can replace vertical & proprietary solutions.
You mean fair, not free. The only way to avoid the tyranny of the powerful is regulation restricting their freedom to abuse their powers.
THAT’S what the government is supposed to do to a market: help the small to regular sized fish and cooperation between them by, amongst other things, erecting fences keeping off the sharks that would otherwise immediately eat them.
Also stuff with plants, I guess, but this ocean analogy is probably long and complicated enough already 😂
This isn’t that though. Running a federated service instance is more akin to them having to abide by the rule of the people than the status quo where Musk or Zuck could boot them from their platform or hide anything they don’t like without any reason at all.
In the fediverse, they’re choosing to run a self-hosted outlet that can interact with other privately or publicly run services. It’s like them choosing to run their own email servers instead of their officials all using gmail accounts.
The free market solutions have just led to unelected billionaire oligarchs controlling the narrative. With this federated stuff, no single entity can control the narrative (once all the kinks are ironed out like vote manipulation, exploits, etc)
Decentralized yet federated open platforms are part of the free market - and a victory of the free market. Consolidating media into an empire is a problem … but … ultimately … a problem the free market can solve, as long as the role of government keeps a free market free.
That sounds like a great idea. Kind of like Twitter verification except the verification that you're really a government official comes from the fact that your home server is a government run one.
And the same could go for corporate accounts. You're a public relations guy at Roblox and want an official, verified account on mastodon/in the fediverse? Spin up social.roblox.com as a mastodon server that has your PR account as its only user, disable open account registration and you're good to go. (maybe an optional dummy account to get federation going by subscribing to all known fediverse servers of interest)
Calling Twitter blue “verification” is a sad joke. You’re just paying the company money and you get the check. There’s no verification whatsoever. You can easily pretend you’re someone else or “verify” an army of bots.
There is verification of sorts for what it’s worth - you drop some HTML on your website, then tell Mastodon to crawl your website to look for it, and if it picks it up, it verifies that your Mastodon account and website are linked.
It helps for all sorts of use cases beyond “this is a famous person”, since people who run smaller projects can also verify who they are on Mastodon - I have 2 verified links on my profile for example.
Why would a government subject itself to potential censorship of whatever admin is running their instance? It makes perfect sense for a government to host their own instance from where they can freely broadcast announcements.
And the free market has proven to be unreliable. You’re subject to whatever billionaire is ego-tripping at the top of whatever platform you’re using. The will of the people is nowhere to be seen.
I think you’re fundementally misunderstanding the purpose of these state instances. They’re a one-way broadcast channel from the government to the people. It’s not a social platform and no one except the government can create an account.
It’s not worse or better than a social platform. It’s an entirely seperate tool. Broadcasting your official government messages through a community owned by other people that could delete your comments on a whim is not ideal. The people have already decided to put the owners in power through democratic elections, which are lightyears beyond the whims of narcisistic billionaires, admins and biased social media polls.
It verifies that what you are seeing is actually from a government agency. Like how .gov as a TLD verifies that you’re in a government website.
You’re really fundamentally misunderstanding this whole situation. This is like the government running their own webserver to host a blog. It’s not government controlling anything.
The texts are terrifying, what’s mildly infuriating is that I have no idea what order to read them in because after the first image it’s just a rant so it could really go in any direction.
Reminds me of an early application of AI where scientists were training an AI to tell the difference between a wolf and a dog. It got really good at it in the training data, but it wasn't working correctly in actual application. So they got the AI to give them a heatmap of which pixels it was using more than any other to determine if a canine is a dog or a wolf and they discovered that the AI wasn't even looking at the animal, it was looking at the surrounding environment. If there was snow on the ground, it said "wolf", otherwise it said "dog".
Maybe not the hardest, but still challenging. Unknown biases in training data are a challenge in any experimental design. Opaque ML frequently makes them more challenging to discover.
The unknown biases issue has no real solution. In this same example if instead of something simple like snow in the background, it turned out that the photographs of wolves were taken using zoom lenses (since photogs don’t want to get near wild animals) while the dog photos were closeup and the ML was really just training to recognize subtle photographic artifacts caused by the zoom lenses, this would be extremely difficult to detect let alone prove.
The general approach is to use interpretable models where you can understand how the model works and what features it uses to discriminate, but that doesn’t work for all ML approaches (and even when it does our understanding is incomplete.)
So is the example with the dogs/wolves and the example in the OP.
As to how hard to resolve, the dog/wolves one might be quite difficult, but for the example in the OP, it wouldn’t be hard to feed in all images (during training) with randomly chosen backgrounds to remove the model’s ability to draw any conclusions based on background.
However this would probably unearth the next issue. The one where the human graders, who were probably used to create the original training dataset, have their own biases based on race, gender, appearance, etc. This doesn’t even necessarily mean that they were racist/sexist/etc, just that they struggle to detect certain emotions in certain groups of people. The model would then replicate those issues.
Early chess engine that used AI, were trained by games of GMs, and the engine would go out of its way to sacrifice the queen, because when GMs do it, it’s comes with a victory.
You don’t use it for the rule-set and allowable moves, but to score board positions.
For a chess computer calculating all possible moves until the end of the game is not possible in the given time, because the number of potential moves grows exponentially with each further move. So you need to look at a few, and try to reject bad ones early, so that you only calculate further along promising paths.
So you need to be able to say what is a better board position and what is a worse one. It’s complex to determine - in general - whether a position is better than another. Of course it is, otherwise everyone would just play the “good” positions, and chess would be boring like solved games e.g. Tic-Tac-Toe.
Now to have your chess computer estimate board positions you can construct tons of rules and heuristics with expert knowledge to hopefully assign sensible values to positions. People do this. But you can also hope that there is some machine learnable patterns in the data that you can discover by feeding historical games and the information on who won into an ML model. People do this too. I think both are fair approaches in this instance.
All possible moves one step from a given position sure.
But if you then take all possible resulting positions and calculate all moves from there, and then take all possible resulting positions after that second move and calculate all possible third moves from there, and so on, then the possibilities explode so much in number that you can’t calculate them anymore. That’s the exponential part I was refering to.
You can try and estimate them roughly, let’s say you’re somewhere in the middle of the game, there are 12 units of each side still alive. About half are pawns so we take 1.2 possible moves for them, for the others, well let’s say around 8, thats a bit much for horses and the king on average, but probably a bit low for other units. So 6 times 8 and 6 times 1.2, lets call it 55 possibilities. So the first move there are 55 possible positions, for the second you have to consider all of them and their new possibilitues so there are 55 times 55 or 3025, for the third thats 166375, then 9.15 million, 500 million, 27.6 billion, 1.5 trillion etc. That last one was only 7 moves in the future. Most games won’t be finished by then from a given position, so you either need a scoring function or you’re running out of time.
There are more possible chess moves (estimated at 10^120 for an average game) than there are atoms in the observable universe (estimated at 10^80). That is to say the number of possible chess moves has 40 more zeros on the end than the number of atoms in the observable universe.
Can you point to some souce showing how modern hardware can work these out easily?
That’s funny because if I was trying to tell the difference between a wolf and a dog I would look for ‘is it in the woods?’ and ‘how big is it relative to what’s around it?’.
Working in computing for years and this is what I’ve heard
2000: IPv4 is about to dry up, we really need to start moving to v6!
2005: OH NO THE SKY IS FALLING IPv4 IS ALMOST GONE! IPv6 IN THE NEXT YEAR OR TWO OR THE INTERNET WILL DIE!
2010: WE’RE SERIOUS THIS TIME IPv6 NEEDS TO BE A THING RIGHT NOW! HELP!
2015: Yeah, okay, NAT has served us well so far, but we can only take it so far, we really need v6 to be the standard in the next 5-10 years or we’re in trouble!
2020: Um… guys? IPv6? Hello? Anyone? crickets
2024: IPv6ers are now the vegans of networking
this may or may not be satire, just laugh if unsure
But new IPv4 allocations have run out. I've seen ISPs that won the lottery in the 90s/2000s (when the various agencies controlling IP allocations just tossed them around like they were nothing) selling large blocks for big money.
Many ISPs offer only CGNAT, require signing up to the higher speed/more expensive packages to get a real IP, or charge extra on top of the standard package for one. I fully expect this trend to continue.
The non-move to IPv6 is laziness, incompetence, or the sheer fact they can monetize the finite resource of IPv4 addresses and pass the costs onto the consumer. I wonder which it is.
Oooh is that why ipv6 adoption is so regional ( Based on www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html ) . Like france ,germany or india having more than 70 % while italy or poland hanging below 20% ? Also judging from this site it seems like ipv6 is actually getting adopted at quite the rapid pace. Even if some regions are faring way worse than the others.
I mean, at least over here, a white IP has been a paid service for as long as I can remember. Absolute majority of people don’t need a static IP, which is why we haven’t had internet “breaking” because of IPv4 running out.
But this is another interesting thing. Dynamic IP addresses made sense, when we were dialling up for internet, and the internet wasn't the utility it is now.
Back then we'd dial up for a few hours in the evening or weekend. Businesses that didn't have a permanent presence would connect in the day to send/receive emails etc. So, you could have 500 IP addresses to around 1500 users and re-use them successfully.
But now, what is the real point in a dynamic IP? Everyone has a router switched on 24/7 sitting on an IP. What is the real difference, in cost in giving a static IP over a dynamic one? Sure, CGNAT saved them IP addresses. But, with always on dynamic just doesn't make sense. Except, that you can charge for a static IP. The traffic added by the few people that want to run services is usually running against the tide of their normal traffic. So, that shouldn't really be an extra cost to them either.
If everyone that ran a website did the extra work (which is miniscule) to also operate on IPv6, and every ISP did the (admittedly more) work to provide IPv6 prefixes and ensure their supplied routers were configured for it, and that they had instructions to configure it on third party routers, IPv4 would become the minority pretty soon. It seems like it's just commercial opportunity that's holding us back now.
From what I understand about the providers, they really don’t like it when you’re generating outbound traffic. Sure it’s advertised to be symmetrical, but the actual hardware they place here can get bogged down if you start hosting a popular site (or seeding too much).
And of course, if they can charge you for a static IP then defaulting to dynamic is imperative, isn’t it? Pretty sure they’d try that with IPv6 too just to keep the income stream.
Regardless, the actual issue with IPv6 around here seems to be that the providers either don’t know how to or don’t care to implement it properly. Sure I can tick on “IPv6” in my router, but that doesn’t mean I have an unbroken chain or routing hardware that supports it connecting me to the great internet.
And of course, if they can charge you for a static IP then defaulting to dynamic is imperative, isn’t it? Pretty sure they’d try that with IPv6 too just to keep the income stream.
I've mentioned it elsewhere. Some ISPs here in the UK have a dynamic IPv6 prefix. Want a static one? Sure, pay up.
I suppose to an extent this kind of thing is akin to low cost airlines. Sure you can "technically" get a flight for €15. But once you've made it even remotely bearable you'll be paying around the cost of a full service airline. But, it does make it very hard to have a website doing a proper price comparison.
I suspect it's the same here. I pay a bit more than most ISPs. But for that, I get decent in country support, fixed IPv6 prefix and static IP (I actually have a legacy IP block, but you don't get those included in the base price any more). Whereas plenty of other providers charge less, but will charge you for anything beyond the most basic of connections. It means my ISP always appears at the expensive end of price comparisons.
Yeah, I just checked, getting a static IPv6 here in Russia from my ISP costs ~.4 eur per month. IPv4 is ~1 eur, so you get a discount if you go for v6! Oh and despite my ISP saying they support v6, connection I got doesn’t have it at all. Probably whatever hardware they got in my house doesn’t know what it is.
As a networker, ipv6 is the future. I’m a fan of it, but I don’t really talk about it anymore because there’s no point.
I threw in the towel after an ISP messed up so badly that I just couldn’t bother anymore.
At a previous job a client I was doing some work for got a new internet connection at a new site, the ISP ran brand new fiber for it. This wasn’t a new building or anything, but the fiber was new. They allocated them a static IPv4 thing as usual, and I asked the tech about V6, and they said we would have to take it up with the planning team, so I did. I was involved in the email chain at the end of the sales process to coordinate the hookup. So I asked. After many emails back and forth, I was informed the connection was allocated.
They allocated one single IPv6 subnet directly off of their device. I couldn’t even.
For those that don’t understand, the firewall we had connected to the device is an ipv6 router. What normally happens, especially in DHCP customer connections, is that the router will use DHCP-PD to allocate a subnet for the router to use on the LAN, and automatically set up a route to say “reach this subnet we allocated for this router, via this router” kind of thing. I’m dramatically simplifying, but that’s the gist. In DHCP-PD, the router will also have an IPv6 address on the ISP-facing link to facilitate the connection. In the case of the earlier story, they gave us an entire subnet to communicate between the ISP and the router, and didn’t give us a subnet for the client systems inside the network.
I did ask about this and I can only describe their reply as “visible confusion”.
I know many who will still be confused by this point are people who have not used IPv6; to explain further: the IP on your local (LAN) systems needs to be a public IP address, because the router no longer does network address translation when sending your data to the internet. So the IP on the router has no bearing on your computer having a connection to the internet over v6. If your local computer does not have a globally unique ipv6 address, you cannot use IPv6. There are ways around this, NAT66 exists but it’s incredibly bad practice in most cases. The firewall I was working with didn’t really support NAT66 (at least, at the time) and I wasn’t really going to set that up.
ISPs are the reason I gave up on IPv6.
I’ll add this other story to reinforce it. I’ll keep it brief. A different ISP for a different company at a different site entirely. The client purchased a static IPv4 address, and I asked about IPv6, as you do. To preface, I know this company and used them for my own connection at the time. They have IPv6 for residential clients via DHCP-PD. I was told, no joke, that because of the static IPv4 assignment, and how they execute that for businesses, that they couldn’t add IPv6 to the connection, at all.
The last thing I want to mention is a video I saw, which is aptly named “CGN, a driver for IPv6 adoption” or something similar. It’s a short lecture about the evils of carrier grade NAT, and how IPv6 actually fixes pretty much all the bs that goes with CGN, with fewer requirements and less overhead.
IPv6 is coming. You will prefer IPv4 until you understand how horrific CGN is.
Yep. It was mostly a joke. Mostly. The bungled adoption of v6 plus all the ways we can still leverage v4 is what’s keeping v6 from being adopted any time soon, but one day we’re going to have to rip off the band-aid and just go for it. Sure, v6 is going to bring its own issues and weirdness, but FUTURE!
I swear it’s going to be a generational change where it takes a slow adoption by the younger network people as the older network people slowly retire. Kind of like how racism and sexism has diminished. It wasn’t like we changed anyone’s mind, just that people held onto it until they died and younger people just said, “The future is now, old man.” and moved past it.
All I want to say about this is that the technology specialists, especially in networking, are usually not this opposed to change. Things change for networking and systems folks all the time. We’re used to it. Most of the time the hard sell is with the management folks who Green light projects. They don’t want to “waste” money on something that “nobody wants”.
Legitimately, one company I asked about IPv6 said to me that customers had not requested it, so they haven’t spent any time on implementing it.
I imagine you sitting there like Scotty, “Give me an ip address, not no colon, not no hexadecimal, and not no bloody double colon. Just 4 numbers between 0 and 255 with a dot in between.”
So, my argument here is… Why the hell are you memorizing IP addresses?
Is your DNS so misconfigured that you’re still punching in IPs by hand?
DNS is the solution. Going to “router.domain.local” or whatever your internal domain is, is easier to remember than… Which subnet am I on again? Is this one 192.168.22.254? Or 192.168.21.1?
Stop punching in numbers like a cave man. Use DNS. You won’t even notice if it’s IPv6 after that
DNS, by its very nature is redundant. So DNS shouldn’t just fall over. If it does, you’re doing something wrong.
If you absolutely need to go to IP addresses, they should be documented.
Unless DNS is outright wrong, there should not be an issue.
For scrolling: are you staring at active log files? Who isn’t using a syslog aggregator? You can easily look up the IP of whatever device that is interesting and filter the log by that IP.
The important bit is that almost every major web service is already running fully dual stacked. Azure, Amazon, Meta, CloudFlare, Google… If it’s a commonly known internet company, it’s probably ready for IPv6.
There’s still plenty that isn’t ready, but most well known things have been ready for years at this point.
The fact that almost the entire internet is controlled by those evil companies is really fucking sad. I remember the old days when people, you know, hosted their own shit and used manual load balancing to keep large sites up and working.
I gave it the old college try about 6 months ago. Found out how to send the req for a subnet to my ISP. Configured my opnsense. When it worked, it worked. But it would randomly stop routing regularly. After a lot of troubleshooting determined it was the isp and have up.
This is remarkably common. A major factor is how to handle renewals. There appears to either be bugs with the procedure or there’s disagreement on how it should be handled. So it will work, for a while, until a renewal needs to happen, then everything goes to shit.
I’ve directly witnessed this in router/firewall logs. That there’s an attempt to renew the DHCP-PD, which does not get a valid reply.
so is there just no standard for renewal? Or are ISPs just refusing to use the standard, for whatever reason?
I can’t imagine we don’t already have a standard for this shit. I’d be baffled if we didn’t. So surely it’s just ISPs being their usual, useless selves.
This is less to do with the ISPs and more to do with the implementation of DHCP-PD renewals on various software/hardware devices. I’m not going to point any fingers, but it seems that some vendors don’t play very nicely with other vendors.
Thanks for the comment. Kinda confirms my approach (mostly out of laziness) of “I’ll do it when the ISP starts pushing it” is the correct one.
I think tech advocacy generally doesn’t work, and in the case of IPv6 I can’t see it working at all unless they can convince the ISPs to devote a lot more resources to it. But since I’m not an ISP… meh, whatever I guess.
At least you can talk to someone at your ISP who can change things, in 10 years I was literally never been able to contact someone who knows anything about networks in any of the 3 big ISPs here… all I get is this:
“oh you have speed issue? Let me “refresh” your connection”
“No sir i have no speed issues, I just need to be able to open IPv6 ports”
“Oh trying to changing the cable port?”
“Sigh… can you transfer me to advanced support plz”
“Sure thing”
Advanced support: “So you having speed issues?”
“No i just need to be able to open IPv6 ports”
“Ah ports, you can do that from your router settings i think”
“No sir, you are the only ISP here where I can’t open ports or receive any ICMP on my ipv6”
“Let me see… i’ll refresh your connections”
And it’s the same of many different issues, you can’t get a hold of anyone who can change anything in any layer about any config. Take it or leave it…
At most, the difference between your experience and mine was that the support I recieved at least understood what IPv6 was, which is likely a function of most of my stories being from business support, rather than residential support.
Almost every time I call I get nowhere. Which is why I’ve given up. Obviously, someone high up in the technical teams is trying to implement IPv6 with very limited success. So I’m just trying to be patient, as they navigate the hellscape of corporate approvals and get things working.
critical difference here was also the consumption of oil. It’s gone down significantly since then as processes have moved to other materials and more efficient methods of manufacturing, due to the price increase of oil. Likewise, our oil consumption has gone down, and our ability to extract it HAS gone up, just not all that much. The big difference is that there’s just more oil that we know about now, than there used to be.
IPV4 addresses are a static pool, that never changes, the only thing that changes is the adoption of them, as certain things move to IPV6 they’re still likely to hold IPV4 in some capacity, as IPV6 isn’t fully rolled out almost anywhere.
critical difference here was also the consumption of oil. It’s gone down significantly since then as processes have moved to other materials and more efficient methods of manufacturing,
IPv4 addresses are a static pool, yes. But we’re continually using them more efficiently, the same as Oil. The difference being that Oil has a limit on the amount of energy contained in its chemical bonds, but you could quite happily host 1,000 or 10,000 websites on a single server.
yes sorry, what i meant to say was “the expected usage of oil over time” When a lot of the early to late 90’s "we’re running out of oil stuff was happening, a lot of predictions would’ve been based on continued increased usage of oil. Rather than it just randomly plateauing. It’s likely that the predicted curve would’ve have been significantly more exponential than presented.
And we’re also talking on a more local scale here, so this would be more centric around a single country, or north america specifically. Or perhaps assuming that third world countries would start industrializing or something. There are any number of factors that could have influenced the potential consumption predictions.
another interesting tidbit, this was also just after the time we thought we were going to build a lot of nuclear power, so arguably that influenced the older variants of the graph as well as the modern consumption of oil for power production, for example.
IPv4 addresses are a static pool, yes. But we’re continually using them more efficiently, the same as Oil.
Yeah but idk about this one. Perhaps at the scale of CDNs and proxy distribution, but generally, i don’t see this being very possible, simply because in order for a site to be supported strictly by IPV6 it must be supported by all connecting clients, and considering that most clients today are uh, not IPV6. If you want your service to work, it’s going to need to be IPV4. I mean sure internal communications, but those aren’t real so you can use any subnet range you want, it makes no difference.
but you could quite happily host 1,000 or 10,000 websites on a single server.
it depends on what you classify as a server, what you define a website as, and how you define the usage of it, but yeah generally, ignoring the fact that this is irrelevant, it’s about that simple.
We’re constantly running out; but every fes years, we figure out a new way to extract more oil/make do with the addresses we currently have.
It’s a supply and demand situation. We run out of things not only when they are physically exhausted, but also when it’s not economically viable to find ways to make more. But when demand increases enough, it will eventually become economically viable again.
IPv4 dried up a long time ago. But it’s different for every country. Countries like US and UK simply took over large blocks of IPv4 addresses and countries like Brazil got fucked. So, if you’re in a country with a large pool, you won’t notice any issues today, but if you’re not so lucky, a lot of internet services are not accessible to you because some dickhead got IP banned and that IP is shared by thousands if not millions of users in your country.
Who needs an IP address anymore? What year is it? You want to connect to your friend’s computer and exchange some information via computer system, seriously? Just use Cloudflare, Google or Azure and route everything through them.
You… do know how computers connect to each other, right? I hope this is sarcasm. But these days unless it’s specifically stated, it’s usually not, just a bunch of dumb kids who can’t understand how the internet works.
And then the dumb kid realizes he’s dumb and says “uh yeah, sarcasm, duh, didn’t you know i was joking, hahahahaha, yep, I knew, of course I did!” when he totally didn’t.
But regardless of the fucking point, no one wants to use these big business trash that is ruining the internet.
Basically Google wanted to put checksums in webpages and then not render the page period if the checksum didn’t match and said checksum could only be verified by “approved” browsers that had the correct certificate (which surprise was Chromium only browsers such as Chrome and probably Edge). As such you wouldn’t have been able to run any adblockers as that would change the checksum and the way the page was rendered. They could also then go one step further and do a Denouvo type set up to make sure the OS wasn’t being altered.
Okay, so I originally was going to go in a long rant about how they’re still doing it, but decided that it didn’t really add much to the comment, so removed it.
Afaik they’ve, for now at least, shelved it in browsers, but are still going ahead in Android webviews (as part of their war on Youtube Vanced).
I love posts like this because it always has the subtle insinuation that weight gain is some moral failing on individuals instead of the natural result of allowing food producers across the board to sell the most unhealthy slop you could ever dream of while simultaneously making healthy food (literally just fresh, unprocessed items - i.e. the things that everyone ate for tens of thousands of years) a luxury item. This, of course, happening after food lobbyists successfully brainwashed entire generations of people with their shareholder-approved “food pyramid.”
Healthy food is absolutely not a luxury item. I’ll accept the argument that the time to prepare healthy food is a luxury, but in almost every corner of the US you will find basic ingredients (eg rice, beans, carrots, celery, corn, potatoes, pasta) are way less expensive than the pre-prepared slop in boxes in the middle aisles of the store. People are addicted to that sugary shit and actively choose it
Addiction is the inability to stop doing something.
With the acknowledgement that addiction is a disease, what’s happening is a part of the brain cannot stop choosing to do something, for a variety of legitimate chemical and habitual reasons
Lol yes. Choice has meaning. Choice here being dictated by compulsive behavior, or dominant chemical signaling is still choice. Like, your brain is doing it. Choice is not just “what color shirt will I wear today”, it is far deeper.
I’m not victim blaming or trying to fuck with you, I am focusing on the fact that words have meaning, and choice isn’t just a surface level, front brain thing. Choice is integral to the human condition, and choice and addiction are bedfellows. The latter dominating the former.
Choice is, by definition, not subject to compulsion, and if it is subject to compulsion is not a willing choice, it is forced and influenced. If you want to be a pedantic asshole at least have the intellectual integrity to be right first.
Compulsion: an irresistible persistent impulse to perform an act
Impulse: a sudden desire, whim, or inclination
Inclination: a preference or tendency, or a feeling that makes a person want to do something
Preference: the power or opportunity of choosing
Addiction is the loss of power or opportunity to CHOOSE.
You seem obsessed with the assumption that I think addicts are just weakly choosing the wrong thing, or something. That’s very much not my suggestion. Deep in the core of the brain, chemical dependence pathways influence decisionmaking in a way the victim is unable to override.
How is choosing to buy a sugared drink instead of water the same as playing a game of chess against a grandmaster? What exactly about it makes your analogy fit?
Information: does an individual know chess rules? Openings? En passant? Do they want to spend the time and effort to learn? Are they getting their info from reliable sources or are they learning bongcloud and knooks?
Difference in skill level: the food and diet industries have thousands of specialists on their side with experience in psychology, advertisement, economics, lobbying, etc. Grandmasters can set up traps that new like a good idea to their opponent while thinking 10 steps ahead.
Complexity: chess and diet are not a single choice, but a series of choices, some of which make later moves more difficult.
Effort: it takes a long time to learn enough to even put up a decent resistance to a grandmaster, let alone win. It’s more than I’d care to put in. I don’t want to think about chess all the time. That’s called a chessing disorder.
So your point is that it’s difficult to resist the urge to buy sugared drinks due to distinct factors such as lack of information about it being unhealthy (which I seriously doubt nowadays) and people being psychologically manipulated through advertisements and making their product economically competitive. I agree some of these factors make it easier to be unhealthy, but I disagree that it’s enough to say people don’t have and make a choice. The choice to be healthy is just a harder one to make than it should.
You’re straw manning me. I’m not saying people don’t have a choice. But they’re still going to lose. It doesn’t matter that I have a choice of which piece to move when the point is not to move pieces, but to checkmate. Saying there are choices misses the point.
No it doesn’t because you’re arguing as if choices were dependant on one another. Choosing to avoid a coke one time doesn’t mean you’re now in a bad position to avoid another coke later on. It’s not about winning or losing it’s about building habits and keeping them, which I have agreed is made hard in some people’s environment.
The point I’m making is that a game of chess has a conclusion, a destiny if you will, in which you’ll lose even if you make a good choice right now. Real life is not like that, your choice to be healthy now does not mean you’ve lost the opportunity to do so in the future, ultimately leading you to your “destiny” of being unhealthy. That is victim mentality and we shouldn’t endorse it. Still, I completely agree that making the unhealthy choice has become easier in recent times, and we should strive to reverse that trend.
I don’t believe I talked you down or stayed from a respectful tone, but if I made you feel like that I just want to say it was not my intention. In any case, have a good one!
I was also reading an article about nutritional quality of food itself has been declining over the last 50 years. So to get the same nutritional amount, you need to eat more food period.
There’s also bigger systemic issues about food access that is driving people to “choose” it. Lack of time, cost, availability, transportation all factor in that are beyond a simple idea if a person having a pure choice between two equal (or even somewhat equal) options.
almost every corner of the US you will find basic ingredients (eg rice, beans, carrots, celery, corn, potatoes, pasta) are way less expensive than the pre-prepared slop in boxes
However, a number of studies suggest that poor health in “food deserts” is primarily caused by differences in demand for healthy food, rather than differences in availability.
First of all, that’s one “devil’s advocate however” in an article full of information to the contrary.
Second of all, I’d be interested in seeing who funded those studies. Lobbying groups for different unhealthy foods as well as grocery stores looking for excuses to not cater to poor people often fund junk studies that say exactly what they want them to. Just like Big Tobacco did and political groups still do.
Third, addiction still ≠ choice and sugar is more addictive than most narcotics.
Just on your last point, sugar is not more addictive than narcotics. That’s complete bunk. Provide a primary source for that claim if you want to refute me, but all those headlines about that topic were sensational and were basically based on sugar lighting up the same part of the brain as narcotics, namely the pleasure areas. So we like them both, but that has no bearing on addictiveness.
Huh, guess I might technically live in a food dessert
low-income census tracts that are more than one mile from a supermarket in urban or suburban areas and more than 10 miles from a supermarket in rural areas.
Many people in the US also live in food deserts where easy access to healthy food IS a luxuary due to simply not being able to buy it where they live or work.
“I can spend a ton of executive function thinking about and preparing food in a way contrary to what the food industry and their advertisers, food engineers, psychologist, etc., try to get a person to do while having only a slight chance at losing weight if I’ve already gained it. I’ll probably do so by getting involved in the super scammy diet industry.”
Vs
“I don’t want to spend that much of my life thinking about, preparing, tracking food (maybe because I have an eating disorder/medical issue/mental health issues, maybe because it’s just not worth it to me)”
It’s also not just a choice, it’s dozens of choices every day, forever.
You’re way oversimplifying it. We’re not going to magically get better humans, so maybe changing the systems would be a better way to get results than relying on people and industry to change their behavior (which is obviously not working).
Even if you only have access to garbage food you can still limit your caloric intake. I eat fast food every day I work and I’m a healthy weight. It’s not difficult at all.
All you have to do is know how many calories you need in a day (this is easily available online)and keep track of how many you’re eating (again nutritional info is easily available online). If you want to get really fancy with it you can look at protein/carbs/fat specifically.
Everything else comes down to self control and making excuses. If you have problems with snacking don’t keep snacks in the house or at least serve them in a reasonable portion instead of sitting with the bag and shoveling them down your gullet for an hour before you realize what you’ve done to yourself. If you only have fast food options buy al a carte items instead of the XXL Big Mac combo with a 1/2 gallon of coke. A bit of self awareness when you are choosing what you consume is all it takes.
I’ve practiced CICO most of my adult life. Both when I wanted to gain weight and when I wanted to lose it. It works. The body can only reduce metabolism so much. If you maintain a deficit you will lose weight. When I’m cutting I can plan almost exactly how long it will take to get where I want to be just by tracking calories.
I was only commenting on the concept of free will. Doesn’t matter where you apply it, we’re all just following our programming.
Obviously, the program is incredibly complex, otherwise the illusion of free will wouldn’t be so easy to believe.
However, there are many examples where the programming becomes apparent.
The best example of this is a radio lab episode about a woman with transient global amnesia. Her memory reset every 90 seconds, and she kept repeating the same conversation over and over for hours. Like a program stuck in a loop.
She couldn’t choose to say something else. Given the same input, she would repeat the same response every time. She didn’t have the ability to realize she had already said it, so she just kept looping.
Plenty of philosophers over the centuries have thought long and hard about the free will problem, and not all of them have come out on the side of it existing. David Hume, for instance, had to resort to religion to solve his issues with it (God made us have free will), and several contemporary philosophers have come down firmly on the “deterministic but complex enough to look non-deterministic” side of the fence. in essence, that free will is an illusion, but a good enough one that we still feel like we have it.
Okay fair enough. But that’s philosophy and doesn’t really translate to the physical properties of the universe. I do understand what you’re saying from the philosophical point of view. I did read both responses you sent.
I think you have great points, but I also don’t want to absolve personal responsibility entirely. I think I saw Boogie for on the Financial Audit and spends $900 per month on fast food? There’s definitely food deserts and busy people with busy lives and bad education. Absolutely. I also find that healthier living was easier in the UK as grocery stores had ready-made meals easier to access with better options. However, I do think there’s also a component of personal accountability for those that know the right thing to do and choose not to.
Both things can be true. People can be addicted or have limited access to food, but still choose poorly from their limited choices. It’s a “diminished capacity” to make and choose healthy food.
Yes, premade food has gotten more expensive and worse nutritionally. So choose better among your limited choices. There’s no one who actually has no options for fruit, vegetables, or meat. It just takes time to shop and cook.
…the average American had between 400 and 500 calories worth of snacks a day, which is typically more than what they ate at breakfast. Even worse, the snacks usually carried little to no nutritional value
All food has gotten expensive due to inflation/greedflation, but (at least in my area) snacks, desserts, and some sugary drinks got hit especially hard. Except maybe for people living in food deserts, snacks are way more of a luxury good than “whole” foods are nowadays.
Also fucked up is that fat doesn’t = bad. I dunno when this came about but you can be unhealthy and skinny as well, and you can be unhealthy and jacked. I won’t say that, kind of along the lines of a bodybuilder, it’s easy to be healthy and be fat, but you can do it. Sumo wrestlers. You want that subcutaneous fat, and not that visceral fat, and you wanna have good cardio and heart health.
Part of the reason why people become super fat is because they enter a kind of death spiral where they don’t believe they’ll ever get better, and then they eat more, because what’s the point if you’ll never get better at all. Part of the reason why they think they’ll never get better is because people are constantly telling them that’s the case, and that they’re at fault for being the way they are, when usually people get really fat through some childhood trauma or mental disorder. I’m not gonna blame someone for that, or demand they “take responsibility” for it. Especially if them “taking responsibility” for it just ends up making them eat more slop.
It’s really not that complicated. Positive reinforcement and active help is a lot better in these situations than demanding that people be held accountable for being so fat, or that it’s their choice, or whatever. I don’t really care to argue the semantics of philosophies of “free will” or whatever, I’m just saying people need to not be dicks to fat people, because that’s more productive to making them be healthy.
Hear hear. And it wouldn’t matter to me even if being fat were automatically a death sentence and the only reason people got that way was laziness. Even if it were a simple choice that someone made, it’s still none of my business, y’know?
It’s both none of my business, and being a dick isn’t an effective way to get them to change. I dunno why so many people kind of have that as like, a default response. I guess it makes sense to get mad when someone you care about “chooses” to self-destruct, but people are complicated and delicate machines, and they require better maintenance than the nuclear option, and ultimatums.
I think part of why people have this sort of desire for everyone to have agency, they have this narrative, is because it’s the only way that they’ll be able to keep dealing with all these shitty things in their life. It’s like a really bad survival strategy, or something, people become kind of fucked up and then they only function if they have this dire sense of internal pressure at all times, that they’re responsible for everything that happens in their life. It’s weird, and I don’t really get it.
I’m truly not being a negative nancy but the last time I checked reddit had 400M user accounts. We should be comparing active user numbers, but either way, this is a drop in the bucket and reddit rightly does not consider Lemmy a threat to its supremacy at this point.
Personally I don’t care if I’m talking to millions of people vs hundreds of thousands as long as there are enough people to make it feel alive and like a community.
Exactly. I don't give a fuck about Reddit any more. I'd rather be in a niche community with (some) quality content than on some huge site with mainly reposts. We're not in competition with Reddit. Were trying to be a better alternative.
I don’t need Lemmy to compete with or kill Reddit. All I wanted was any one platform to get enough of an influx of users to be self-sustaining even after the outrage started to die down, which appears to have been successful.
It should behave as a viable and threatening adversary for reddit. As long as reddit carries on doing as it does and lemmy’s communities carry on building, we’re winning by blocking Reddit’s monopoly on mainstream forum-type social media.
I agree. Just give me some decent posts and discussion. For niche things I can go to a big platform with all the users. For my daily browsing, I appreciate a small but active community.
That actually tracks, since lemmy is supposedly populated mostly by “older nerdy males”. I mean they have a point, the quality of discussion is definitely better – for now. That could end with an Endless September event.
Exactly. I don’t want or need to build another McDonalds or Starbucks; I just want to go to the Mom and Pop down the road without worrying if they’ll tank.
Exactly. Well said. We have all the time in the world to grow. What we needed was a good start, and we got it. Just keep creating content, volunteer to mod somewhere, and don’t look back.
I tried a few different apps but I settled on just using the mobile website on my phone. The interface is solid even there, which I think is a great feat.
I’ve only just been able to log into this account using private mode, I only just realised that emptying the cache would’ve worked or something - but the weird thing is my account wasn’t working on mobile apps either so I didn’t think to empty cache on desktop…
I’m truly not being a negative nancy but the last time I checked reddit had 400M user accounts. We should be comparing active user numbers, but either way, this is a drop in the bucket and reddit rightly does not consider Lemmy a threat to its supremacy at this point.
Even when considering accounts across all lemmy instances, it still only combines for a total of 2 million. But overall I’m optimistic about lemmy’s trajectory too.
I mean, it’s more of a threat than it was. In all likelihood, this won’t be the last time reddit does something to really anger it’s userbase. There is a much higher chance of people leaving in future incidents if there is an alternative platform with enough users to actually have the content people want.
No, what we should be comparing is Reddit year 1 numbers with these. They’ve had 20 years to grow organically. I bet Lemmy’s start would look a lot more promising than Reddit’s. And Reddit also had much larger competitors when it came out, if you recall.
It’s a hard habit to break, because we’ve been trained to think this way for years, but try to remember: we don’t need to attract millions of users to be valuable. This isn’t a commercial enterprise. We don’t sell advertising. We don’t measure success by the number of eyeballs we can promise paying customers.
What matters now is the quality of conversation. In fact, that’s the ONLY measure of any consequence. It’s strange, because in the past, someone’s often tried to use services like this as a way to make money, or as a way to make something else they were selling more attractive. We expected it. It was always in the back of our heads. It even got to the point that if a company did something that wasn’t an effort to increase profitability, we criticized them. Generosity, real generosity, was alien to us.
It’s hard to wrap your head around the idea that people volunteer their time and money to build and maintain the fediverse, simply because they want us to be able to communicate. That’s it. There’s no hidden agenda. There’s no quest for profit at our expense.
I’m perfectly fine with the fediverse growing slowly. I don’t want it to be strained beyond what the mods can handle. Bigger isn’t necessarily better.
Coming from the non-profit world, it is never that easy. Even when there is no one officially making any money, there are people who will see it as a way to make some bank. There is also a drawback in that not making money can and will affect the amount of time people can put in unless there is a fair way to get them compensation. Volunteering also brings a huge amount of interpersonal and inter-organizational drama. That is why grassroots organizations and movements have a habit of fracturing into smaller groups.
At the same time, there is power in goodwill and being non-profit. You just really need to be careful in vetting your instance and keep an eye on issues in a way people not used to this type of world are not familiar with.
But I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t have a belief that it could be successful enough as a community. I also wouldn’t have been working in the NGO world for the past decade if I didn’t believe in that. But let’s not have too rosy glasses on. Growing slowly will also give this community a chance to work out the kinks and not die in a blaze of fire.
In the case of social network like this, bigger generally is better for the users. The thing that made Reddit great was that whatever your niece interest, there was a community of thousands of other interested people. There was so much information and advice on whatever obscure topic.
There’s a reason why there’s only around 10 really popular social networks and it’s certainly not that those platforms are any good. The network effect is important.
Agreed on the need to adjust mindset. Initially I behaved similarly to how I did on that other site until I realized that Lemmy is different and that’s ok. It’s a lot smaller and federation has its advantages and drawbacks and we’ll see it in action soon enough. Many seek the comfort of the familiar and are not always finding it. Start by appreciating the hard work that has allowed many of us to transition here quite easily. Take a deep breath, look around and realize that we are now playing a different game.
I personally don’t derive any value from high quality conversations about topics I don’t care about. That’s why I need these millions of users, so that there are people I can talk with about topics I care about. I’m willing to go on a limb here an say that your interests and mine don’t fully align.
I kinda don’t agree that that would provide any valuable insight unless you factor in the ease of access to the internet and speeds and availability of smartphones and computers across the world.
It would provide more insight than comparing their current figures. When Uber started, if you compared the number of people that got taxis in those first months to Ubers numbers you’d have bet on Uber to be out of business in months.
Some thoughts on that, Reddit has half a billion monthly active users. Lemmy has about 50k monthly active users. That’s .01% or one ten thousandth. We won’t be displacing Reddit anytime soon, but then we don’t want to. That’s the main problem with Reddit, it’s too damn big and too damn corporate. The main thing is Lemmy sees enough growth to stay relevant and viable. It doesn’t have to compete with anyone.
I did rm -r * / the first time I ever jailbroke an iPhone by spazzing and hitting enter before I’d finished typing the full command. (I’m terrible at mobile typing.) I’ll never forget the full body sweat that put me in immediately.
Did that once many years ago on a Linux system, wanted to delete a directory tree, but I was logged in as root and didn’t realize I was at the root prompt. Wiped out the whole drive. Not a big deal since it was just a test install so I was being careless anyway.
Back then Linux didn’t protect root from making stupid mistakes. I think now you need another switch to actually delete the root directory. I’ve since gone to using FreeBSD mainly and I haven’t tried it there, but I think at root as root you can still wipe the drive with that command. FreeBSD is less idiot proof than Linux. I think iOS is based on BSD Unix, isn’t it?
Woof. I’m glad I’m not the only one that’s done these things!
I want to say that you’re right, but I’m not NEARLY as familiar with *BSD or it’s history as I am with Linux. My understanding, though, is that iOS/macOS are based upon Darwin, and that Darwin derives a fairly significant portion of its code base from BSD. So, in part I believe the answer is yes.
As a total side note: do you have a recommendation for a good BSD derivative distribution to try? I’ve tried probably 15 Linux distros, but never made it to BSD-world!
do you have a recommendation for a good BSD derivative distribution to try?
The thing about BSD is it’s fully POSIX compliant which can be good and bad. The good is it’s highly consistent in terms of architecture and how things operate. The bad is standards constraints can limit flexibility. Linux is somewhat POSIX compliant, but has a tendency to go off the rails at times. In any case if you’re comfortable with Linux you’ll be comfortable with BSD right out of the gate.
Linux can suffer a lot from fragmentation due it’s market bazaar style development. FreeBSD is run by a single entity responsible for design top to bottom. There’s been some big changes to Linux in modern times I don’t really care for (such as systemd). With BSD you always know what to expect. You won’t get blindsided by some off the wall change in architecture or design which happens a lot with Linux.
There’s a number of BSD distributions that are open source and free. The main open source BSD distros are FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and DragonFly BSD. FreeBSD is most popular and is designed to be good all around. It’s probably going to have the best device support, but other BSDs can have other strengths. For example DragonFly BSD is stronger for desktop use.
Honestly the best application for BSD is in a sever or development environment. Linux is more advanced when it comes to support for desktop use. Though I think BSD provides a much cleaner and consistent operating system as it conforms to specific standards. You can get it to work well for desktop use with a little extra work and preselection of compatible hardware.
On a user-driven platform, not all users are created equal. Lurkers bring little to no value to the platform beyond clicks. There might be a huge engagement difference on a per user basis.
Moreover… I just want my niche communities to be active. We will never have Reddit’s archive of content, but we can get to a point where the Lemmy’s corpus of knowledge grows to at the same rate as Reddit’s. I don’t know how many users it’ll take to achieve that; 500k? 1m? 2m? 10m? No one knows that number, but to me that is the number to beat.
Easier, definitely. And a unique street name. But it’s quite hard to read the cross street name. All I can see is the “E DR” at the end. I probably wouldn’t have bothered from just seeing the one street and no other text.
True, although since you’re specifically referring to the angle indicated by the painting on the road, referring to the angle of the painted arrow itself would be clearer.
If you’re driving and someone says to do a 180° turn, do you continue driving straight or do you turn around? Angle is measured by direction of travel. Works for 90° too which is probably the confusion.
Bad road design for sure, but the sign still could be better. For example they could make a custom sign, draw the intersection and mark explicitly that you can’t turn to Oakwood.
I’ve been confused and made dangerous choices in traffic for less stupid reasons. Not trying to deflect all blame but considering the lowest common denominator, road construction and signs really need to pay much more attention to the limits of the human brain.
Half of us have an IQ below 100 and we could be driving in darkness, with rain pouring down and facing traffic that shines its headlights into our eyes. The road needs to have an affordance that suggests to the driver how to drive correctly, instead of causing confusion when you already have a lot of traffic to keep track of.
This is exactly the type of content i was hoping for when i clicked on the comments. Thank you for all you hard work sluthing for an explination of a random photo. Its truly gods work that your doing.
What this shows us is that more people are joining lemmy, but even more people are either leaving or going into lurker mode, as Lemmy only counts people who have commented or posted in that time period as active users, whereas most social media counts any activity while logged in as active. You have to realize that people who use reddit as Google search results don’t usually interact with the content there and most won’t even make an account.
On the upside, with fewer people, it’s easy to get noticed here just by contributing good content since you don’t really get drowned out here because of the democratic upvote based sorting instead of black box personalized recommendation algorithms. So with relatively low amount of effort, you can make sure your content is being seen instead of relying on analytics and metrics.
The last thing to in mind that Lemmy is only one aspect of ActivityPub, and Mastodon’s growth is currently the highest right now because of the ecosystem created by the whale fall of Twitter, which indirectly grows Lemmy as Mastodon users can post directly to federated Lemmy communities.
Well, as mentioned that is also covered by the Monthly Active Users metric that already is available. But in addition to that, I think it would be interesting to see the number of users who read and vote but don’t post or comment. Even though posting and commenting is the biggest part, actively voting is still an important part of the ecosystem.
I changed the algorithms in programming.dev to take into account voters in the activity. Since stats are all calculated locally you can view any community from programming.dev to get the monthly active users including that change
e.g. programming.dev/c/[email protected] shows 27.8k users/month on p.d which is almost as much as the value here for all of lemmy excluding voters
Hi there! Looks like you linked to a Lemmy community using a URL instead of its name, which doesn’t work well for people on different instances. Try fixing it like this: !technology
I dug through the code and turns out the post read table does store when its read (with number of comments when it was read stored in a person post aggregates table), it just only stores it for people from your instance so I cant get accurate numbers from all of lemmy (and why it seemed like there was a low amount)
I just got recommended this site after posting on reddit re: predatory algos and the necessary regulations needed to protect people and how algos have manipulated the UX so much its disrupted the originally intended purposes; ie insta has effectively become a marketing and advertising platform.
So in response someone suggested finding alternatives to the popular social media sites and used Lemmy as an example.
I have been loving it thus far - its old school reddit.
There’re always going to be hotheads and bad faith actors in any platform, but I have noticed it is much more rare here on Lemmy. Much less vitriol as well.
Agreed on it being old school reddit! There are some UI wrappers that make it look and feel like old school reddit that I use and love you might enjoy. The wrapper is called mlmym and is open source. There are a few hosts you can use, I use this one: o.opnxng.com
While true, businesses have it even harder to migrate to Linux (what else is there when talking enshittification?) than private users. Windows and dotnet won't go anywhere anytime soon.
Huh? With each passing day Windows is being relied on less and less. Microsoft would have to rewrite from scratch at this point (or stop backward compatibility) if their goal is a secure, dependable OS.
On their desktops, sure. But most apps are web based and back end apps are all services - running on Linux. I worked at a fortune 100 financial firm a couple years back. Hundreds of .NET apps, all running in Linux containers on Amazon ECS clusters or Lambdas.
No, as other’s have pointed out it’s not. There are plenty of other areas to use it, even in other game engines. OP is just trying to make it seem funny by making the exaggerated narrative that it’s the only use case for C#. If Boo was still around in Unity this joke would been accurate with that, don’t think that was used anywhere else
Is Natalie Portman single? Follow up: Does Natalie Portman have low standards? I’ll have a couple dozen more depending on the search results of this one.
I recently called my ISP to complain about the internet issues for the last 5 hours. I told them I’m a dev and kind of know what I’m doing. I’ve already tried multiple devices, restarted the modem multiple time, etc. You know, I haven’t restarted the router.
As I was pulling up the router page, I tried to ping cnn.com from the router’s tools. It went through. On the desktop it wouldn’t. It’s my pi-hole.
It’s always DNS because no one wants to hire us. We’re prima donnas that don’t work much and demand large salaries. Companies think they can get away with having some random network guy “learn a bit of DNS” and it works!!.. For a while… Then it fails catestrophically and the DNS engineer that was let go to “save costs” smugly watches them crash and burn. The job is super easy and simple until you’re 48 hours into troubleshooting and the CTO is lighting money on fire trying to get the network back online. A big company can easily burn a DNS engineers 10 years salary in costs if they have a single large DNS failure (security or downtime).
Sounds like y’all should form a country wide DNS guild, and instead of looking for jobs, just ask band together, and then when the DNS eventually fails, they have no choice but to hire from the guild and pay 5 years salary at once to have it fixed. Then understand if getting hired and fired constantly, you just do a job every now and then and get a huge pay check. So contractor work, but you get to see the companies constantly burn themselves and give y’all with instead.
Any company that is willing to fire me to save costs isn’t worth working for. The job is so in-demand that if I put “looking for a job” in my linked-in, I get multiple offers within the hour. Not even joking. That’s how I got my current job.
Generally to be “in-demand”, you need about 6 years of experience & highly desirable certifications (at least one security cert such as sec+ or CASP, dns-related cert such as Infoblox CDCA, and typically something else like cloud engineering or maybe automation engineering related). Getting into DNS is usually something that happens after you’ve already been an enterprise network engineer for a number of years. It’s highly specialized and rather difficult.
Not possible. While AI can theoretically do the job, error is too expensive. AI already does much of my work, but I have to make risk assessment & I run the automation systems. I already automate much of my daily work. But when big stuff breaks, automation won’t fix it.
I’m not sure if this is stretching it, but this comment thread is just so awesome. It’s like one of those moments on reddit that would be referenced for years to come
Extended spider universe. They’re not cannon in the Charlotte’s web trilogy but director Nicholas Cage always said that his plan was to have Homer be a final bad guy type character that all famouse pig-spiders would pull together against.
Siri show me a pretty lady well damn Mildred my phone stopped answering me again noi wasn’t asking for girls again I good you I stopped that oh sure this again one time and you never let me live it down fuck the phone is typing how do I st
This person is openly telling you that the only thing stopping them from being a shitty person is some myth about otherworldly punishment after they die.
Which, of course, means they’ll be juuuust as shitty as they believe they can get away with.
Yeah, the “why be good if there’s no God/Hell” is a disturbing as fuck argument, because it essentially says that if they decide that their god wants them to start killing, they’ll do it.
I’m good because if I do something bad, I feel bad about it. It’s pretty simple.
exactly. i understand that doing bad things is bad because i feel guilt and shame when i do bad things. conversely, i feel good when i do good things. I also understand the broader implications of both-- not to mention that i have empathy and can see the impact of my actions upon others while caring as well.
i don’t need a fairy tale to threaten me with eternal torture in order to not be a sociopath.
That’s the problem. These people lack empathy. They don’t feel happy when they make someone else happy unless they get something more than that out of it.
because they’ve been taught that life is a zero-sum game: if anyone else’s life improves - even just a little - it must necessarily come at the cost of someone else’s life getting worse. this isn’t true, of course, but they can’t see life as any other way, so the ideas of equality and working together to improve society are antithetical to their worldview. they’re to be fought. They have an “every man for himself” philosophy, and it’s nothing but selfish, self-centered solipsism.
it also teaches their kid that selfish motivations and material rewards are the only things of value, and that they’re worth liying, cheating, and even stealing for-- as long as you don’t get caught, because right and wrong are only a matter of the consequences one may personally face. and, even then, it’s a cost-benefit analysis. again, the zero-sum game.
I had a coworker catholic who both said that statement, and also argued animals had no souls, so no one should ever get in trouble for animal abuse. Along with his ridiculously heated response to any government involvement in Healthcare, and the way he got close to yelling when discussing these topics while also claiming he was just being logical, not emotional. Why yes he did call women emotional, how did you know?
People like him scare me, because it sounds like if he could use some religious context to say I didn’t have a soul, he’d probably come to the same conclusion he did about dogs.
Yeah that’s my takeaway from that argument as well. If you have to be threatened by some vague notion of a future punishment in order to not be a complete dickwad, you’re clearly not a good person.
Why be good if there’s no hell? Because to live is to suffer. Society sucks. Accepting that, working past it, and being kind to those around you makes everything slightly more bearable. You are to be kind to others because it’s the right thing to be.
Happened to a relative of mine, kind of. Went on a drug and debauchery spree. Not the fun way. Hard drugs, seriously addictive. Stole from the family, we all disowned them. Ended up hitting someone while driving under the influence and killing them. Went to jail, supposedly got sober, but I’m still no-contact.
lemmy.world
Top