Yeah, but unironically, mailing a check is great if you don’t want to install an app or sign a digital “monetize me, Daddy” agreement just to make a one-time payment to a company that already knows your mailing address. I usually pay rent and utilities that way, because I can just drop it through the office mail slot, and I don’t have to pay a processing fee to use their sketchy online payment system. Cheaper for me, probably a good laugh for the staff, and not difficult.
Because people who really need those comments can find them in a cache somewhere (such as The Wayback Machine), and while I am sure those comments are very helpful, they are probably not the only source for the information you provided. The difference deleting now makes is that Reddit can’t make more money from your work. People will still find the information, and, if they have to look further than Reddit, they might find you here.
Yes, I think content warnings make it easier to have difficult conversations, not harder. People who don’t want to discuss something are not magically going to become open to those discussions because you spring the topic on them without warning. Content warnings save time, and give people a chance to brace themselves before going into what is usually a big fight.
I like that this is being covered in The Independent, which, afaik, is not a tech-specific publication. Sure, they’re being prim about the phrasing of the protest message, but they’re presenting the motivation behind it in a relatively sympathetic way.
I think they actually did put in fine print saying they could remove about a dozen different kinds of things, including insulting specific people. So this is an example of general restrictions on content creation in /place rather than specific anti-protest action. But it’s still an example of Reddit sucking. If they don’t want free expression, they shouldn’t market this as an opportunity for free expression.
There's a difference between "incapable of understanding" and "doesn't have enough background information to understand." Are there people who can't understand certain tech concepts? Absolutely. But there are a lot more people who just miss the first rung on the ladder, and can't make it to the top. They can understand when they get the explanation from the ground up, but until then, they're stuck.
I see it happen a lot when tech people try to explain something that is brand new to the listener, because when you are already able to understand something at a high level, you forget to mention the first several rungs. It's usually a great explanation, it's just not an explanation the person on the ground can use.
...also, I don't think it's failure to understand login when every instance asks for a separate login if you don't navigate there through your own instance. It's a misunderstanding that results from experiencing the fediverse without understanding how it works, not a failure to grasp an abstract concept.
That's not strictly true, now. I found a good fountain pen community, and a few for knitting and embroidery, among other analog interests. Not everything is here, but the non-tech stuff is starting to trickle in.
It's a leak rather than an announcement (I saw someone mention an announcement earlier, but couldn't find it), but IMO it is made more likely by Reddit's hints in the post about getting rid of gold, and it's also similar to something that has been done in a few crypto subs for a while.
You've lost me on the precise breakdown of growth types, but I don't think there's any kind of growth that can be sustained indefinitely without fundamental changes to a business. If you sell widgets, you are eventually going to hit the limit to how many widgets are going to be purchased anywhere, by anyone, and then you're going to have change something in order to grow.
And sure, I'll accept that it could be all right to grow past the point where your business model has to change. Some businesses do spread into multiple fields and do reasonably well in all of them, although at a certain point it might start violating anti-trust laws. My point is just that "infinite growth" as a long-term strategy can go down some bad roads, regardless of how innocent the starting point is. Even a benign tumor can be life-threatening if it grows in the wrong place, and I think that can apply to growing businesses as well.
The posted content is almost all backed up elsewhere, iirc. My understanding is that the risk is less having a huge amount of content being generated on specific servers than it is having a lot of users concentrated on those servers. Restoring data from backup or migrating communities (from a content perspective, as in, rehosting) is a lot easier than having people locked out, or, worse, losing accounts altogether.
Depends on whether you are trying to reduce the likelihood of people tracking you across instances (for example, if one account is for porn). If you just want duplicate accounts on which you'll do the same things, I don't see why it would be a problem to use the same name.
Does this mean we can say “welcome to the fediverse, we have cake”?