• 2 Posts
Joined 2Y ago
Cake day: Nov 30, 2020


The methodology to answer the question is pretty clear. Go through some ‘experimental philosophy’, and see if that question could have obtained a grant in the Psychology department.

If the answer is ‘no’, then ‘no’.

If the answer is ‘yes’, then it looks like the disciplines have some overlap.

I’m not sure what this really adds. If someone’s only reading Lemmy through Mastodon, why not just stay on Mastodon? It’s nice to crosspost, but I only get Mastodon posts I want to see. But I see all the Lemmy posts on a given community, so it seems vulnerable to spammy @'s.

At the very least I’d say ‘wait until a few lemmies federate’ before lumping that on the admins. I have no idea what the fallour or additional work might be.

This is a title people give to you, not a registered profession. Linus, from Linux Tech Tips is an influencer insofar as he influences people.

While a lot of kids saying “I want to be famous” are a little cringe, if we want to be more charitable we should understand people who say ‘I want to be an influencer’ simply as ‘I want to do well at this job’, which isn’t a bad thing, unless the job is bad.

Less and less since I’ve found you can follow a lemmy channel from Mastodon.

I’ll be back when /r/latex isn’t dead.

It’s not December. I’m calling the cops.

You’re asking about compromises, I take it?

Best to stick to individual examples. With a question this broad, it’s easy to say ‘yes’ by ferreting out some historical cause, but the answer’s not useful, so the question’s not useful. Best to look at which compromises to take for a specific movement.

From their site:

Molly, like Signal, uses Google’s proprietary code to support some features.

It’s Signal, with fewer users.

That has the same fundamental problems, with a smaller network (fewer people use it). If you’re looking for something which will never have those issues, I’d recommend anything on XMPP. Yax, for example, will let you chat with anyone on the xmpp protocol (like conversations, profanity, et c. et c.). It’ll never disappear, and if some problem arises, you can just change the client and keep your account and contacts (basically it’s e-mail but for IMs).

I think the pros/ cons are fairly standardized at this point - we all know the same things:


  • First FOSS platform we could actually use, because normal people can and do use it. My family’s on there. It has emoji-stickers, easy sharing, easy setup, and everything else that makes it viable.
  • Reliable, checkable encryption.
  • Good effort to circumvent bans, e.g. proxies for Iranians.


  • Occasional GPL violations, as they neglected to share the server for a while.
  • Requires a sim card, so you have to agree to a tracking device.
  • Non-federated, so it’s not sustainable. One day it’ll disappear, or get corrupted, or something, and then the entire base has to move somewhere.

I suspect some of the hate on Reddit is simply due to size, though some might be about money - more users means more cash, whereas with self-hosted platform, there’s little cash incentive.

Another use of federation is notification - you can follow @asklemmy@lemmy.ml from Mastodon, and you’ll see posts come up in your feed, so there’s no requirement to continuously check or get an email notification.

Does Discourse federate? Can I follow a group from a Mastodon account?

How do you know #2 on your list won’t cause problems later

Same attitude as a blocklist, broadly. Once someone’s on the shit-list, you just need to be okay with those messages lying in the bin, unseen.

That goes against the fundamental “push” nature of email,

Yea, that’s what I’m going for. It seems to work for IMs. And if someone emails me from nowhere, offering wonderful things, I’ll get back to them late, but don’t have to get a ‘ding’ from all the random crap.

Why don't we stop email spam in the same way as other IMs?
Possibly stupid question, but why not stop e-mail spam in the same way we do IMs? I don't see how I could ever get spam-messages from, e.g. an xmpp account. Worst-case scenario is that I get a bunch of 'subscription' requests, and I can only add friends when I trawl through the requests, or if I know they're adding a request at the time, then look out for that request. Emails seem to let everything in, with a reliance on the admin to sort this out. Why not do the same thing? Specifically, I'm thinking of writing a script: 1. If this person's in my contact-list, they're cool. 2. If they're on the shit-list, they're deleted. 3. If not, they get into the 'waiting room'. ... then set up a shortcut to put someone on the shit-list. So there's no more 'you've got mail' notifications from random spammers, and I can review it once a week or so to pull the good-guys out. Seems like a good idea, but then I wondered, why hasn't this been done before? If the script works, it seems like someone could do the same thing with a GUI.

I learnt Gregg’s shorthand, because it’s beautiful.

I think progress has to look like it’s being made, most of the time. If you prefer modern norms to 70’s norms, then you’d say things have improved.

Clearly, standards in Europe have improved over the last few centuries, but I’m not sure how much of this relates to ethics - a lot of improvements come directly from technology. Women’s rights are much easier to sell when big-paying jobs are in tech, which doesn’t require much grip-strength.

On the other hand, technology hasn’t done any favours for animal welfare, so swings and roundabouts.

I’d say ‘no’, and that this is a category error (like asking what the colour of ‘up’ is).

If I owned by body, I could legally sell it, but I can’t sell it, and wouldn’t want any legal structure allowing people to sell their body-parts. I think bodies aren’t the kinds of things one can own.

Seems like an awful thing to do.

Currently I message people whenever I want, but if this is common, I’ll have to start checking timezones and thinking about when people sleep, or just setting the computer to send messages at the next 9am.

Seems like it’d be easier for everyone to use the phone’s built-in function to go dnd at night.

The lack of oversight is disturbing. We have a couple of places dictating what can and cannot be on the internet.

I’d prefer to no oversight to arbitrary or bad oversight.

NFTs are bullshit. Help me with a reductio ad absurdum
Love, Death and Robots just ended with a little NFT QR code, and before that I saw a message for Ukraine-war NFTs. I don't know what that last bit even means, and I'm so fed up of this bullshit. The plan's to make a protocol for a replacement, just to demonstrate how stupid the entire thing is. Here are NFTs stated goals: - show ownership of art, verified on a blockchain. - allow transferance of ownership Here's why NFTs are bullshit: - you don't need to gind CPUs to have a blockchain. - URLs verify an image - none of this shows ownership. # The New Protocol - Stick image sha256sums in a git repo, verified by gpg keys (now we have a blockchain). - Allow a few people to verify image ownerships, gpg keys (verify other people's stuff if you like, so it's a standard ring-of-trust situation). - Don't bother with proof-of-work. Just let the shasum rest. - Only merge images into the main branch if there's a requested sale (otherwise it gets full of crap). - Display ownership with exifdata. Here's the [repo](https://gitlab.com/andonome/artblocks), just as an example. # Questions - Does this cover 100% of what NFTs were supposed to cover? - Is there an even simpler way of doing this? - Can I add stuff with git-lfs without also downloading it (so the repo remains small, even with 10,000 images)? Just to reiterate - this is a solution to a problem nobody has. It's not a real suggestion, just a proof of concept to show that art-transferance could be handled better with some gaffatape and a git.