There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

acastcandream , (edited )

spoilerasdfgasdfasfgasdg

daniskarma ,

Spanish government is implementing a sort of passport for people to be able to view porn.

They want that any porn website sited in Spain would ask any visitor for credentials to enter, thus assuring it’s over 18 yo.

We call it the “pajaporte”.

Thann ,
@Thann@lemmy.ml avatar

Git is a real-life use-case

Eiim ,

Git is not a blockchain. Most importantly, it’s not distributed. There’s a singular git server that all git clients for that repository connect to and use as a source of truth.

Tja ,

Counterpoint: it is a chain and there absolutely is not one server.

_MusicJunkie ,

For each project there is one authoritative instance, one “server” that everyone pushes to. Otherwise you get chaos.

perishthethought ,

That may be how you use it, but that’s not backed into git. See my previous response. There’s a bunch of FUD in this thread for some reason.

Thann ,
@Thann@lemmy.ml avatar

People want simple answers, and “blockchain bad” seems to satisfy many

Asyx ,

That’s not a git thing though. You can totally have multiple remotes and the remotes are just git repositories themselves. Git is 100% decentralized. There is technically nothing stopping you from having multiple remotes.

Tja ,

Otherwise you get git. You’re describing svn.

Thann ,
@Thann@lemmy.ml avatar

And nobody ever forked a project, and lived happily ever after, then end.

_MusicJunkie ,

If you want to work with the original project, you have to push to the server that controls the original project.

Thann ,
@Thann@lemmy.ml avatar

No you don’t, you can just fork it, add a commit, and walk away, and everyone can decide which one they want to clone

perishthethought ,

git-scm.com/…/Distributed-Git-Distributed-Workflo…

In contrast with Centralized Version Control Systems (CVCSs), the distributed nature of Git allows you to be far more flexible in how developers collaborate on projects. In centralized systems, every developer is a node working more or less equally with a central hub. In Git, however, every developer is potentially both a node and a hub; that is, every developer can both contribute code to other repositories and maintain a public repository on which others can base their work and which they can contribute to.

Windex007 ,

I agree it’s not a blockchain, (although it has chain properties) but it is kinda decentralized. By convention projects almost exclusively have a single remote, and by convention that single remote is treated as an ultimate source-of-truth… But you can absolutely have the same repo with multiple remotes defined, and one could establish different schemes to determine which branches on which remotes represent what in terms of “truth”.

xthexder ,
@xthexder@l.sw0.com avatar

I’ve pulled code branches between my computers without publishing to an external server plenty of times. It’s a really useful feature to be able to keep stuff in sync with a version history.

upto60percentoff ,

Git was built specifically to avoid the necessity to have one authoritative server.

breakingcups ,

That is patently false. It was developed to help develop the Linux kernel, which famously has multiple decentralized repositories managed by different maintainers.

The fact that most companies use it in a way you describe, with only one central repository, does not mean that git is not distributed.

TootSweet ,

One of the crucial differences between blockchain and Git is that Git is fully subserviant to humans and anything can be undone by humans.

If your blockchain house title is stolen by a hacker, either the courts (rightfully) aren’t going to put any significance on the state of the blockchain and are going to say “yeah, you still own your house” (in which case what was the point of using blockchain in the first place rather than a SQL database or some such where mistakes and problems and fraud can be undone without cryptographically-hard obstacles in the way) or if in this hypothetical the Libertarian dystopia has progressed to cartoonish extremes, you’re just SOL and lost your house, which just isn’t even remotely realistic.

JamesConeZone ,
@JamesConeZone@hexbear.net avatar

Blockcain

kibiz0r ,

is a helluva drug

FuckyWucky ,

its ‘decentralized’ copium

veroxii ,

Still a use case

PieMePlenty ,

Bad research based on subjective opinion? I dont see how anyone would see blockchain in itself as useless. It provides a verification method without the use of a centralized system. Are all peer-to-peer systems useless now? Its not to be used as a tool for everything. It will not fix everything. I’d be more interested in research of what happens when reactionary practices are used. Such as using blockchain just because it’s the hot new trend without thoroughly thinking about the consequences of such actions. blockchain = bad / blockchain = good is not good enough, each implementation needs to be studied independently and answers derived from that. Replace blockchain with AI and it’s the same.

Katana314 ,

It’s a way of verification and trust in a system where no one trusts any central authority, but does trust an algorithm. That seems too specific to ever actually be useful. People will end up relying on services or instructions that make the system digestible and usable for them, but as long as they still rely on those giving the instructions, the same problem arises.

And when an example case is brought up, it’s always one central authority that is pushing the idea - and could achieve the same more easily and without power waste using a central server.

PieMePlenty ,

I mean, if one party pushes for use of blockchain, you’d just need to trust that specific system (algorithm, network…) and not explicitly the party pushing for it.

I also wouldn’t call it power ‘waste’ since it does useful work - confirmation. It may be more inefficient compared to a centralized authority though. There are other ways of doing confirmations than proof-of-work as well, though each have their own drawbacks - just like a centralized system does,

mojofrododojo ,

I dont see how anyone would see blockchain in itself as useless.

it’s chewing through tremendous amounts of power and water to improve…? what?

I have yet to see the upside.

djreefa ,

HA! you think the pentagon is in control? You think the people responsible for this debacle are actually following orders? These are all absconders and expats who are doing all this garbage. Pentagon is seemingly powerless to stop them.

Maggoty ,

This posted to the main section, not as a reply.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •