Freesoftwareenjoyer @ Freesoftwareenjoyer @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

231

Joined

2 yr. ago

Even The Linux Foundation has a twitter

Because Linus Torvalds doesn't care about the Free Software movement and user freedom. It's why his kernel is still on GPL2.

That's not how big tech works, it's how DRM works. It is possible to sell music/games/movies in an ethical way, without DRM.

They control the algorithm. If it gives you good recommendations, it is because they want to lure users in. Then they will slowly start pushing only whatever makes them the most money like other platforms do.

The recommendations will likely become worse over time, because they want you to listen to whatever makes them the most money and that might not be the same stuff you want to listen to. The same happened to tiktok recommendations and youtube subscriptions (people stopped getting notifications on creators they subscribed to).

Bandcamp is DRM-free, so whatever you buy there, you truly own it. Unlike on most other platforms.

If you don't own the music/games/movies you pay for, you are always the product.

He could actually still log in and use terminal (https://youtu.be/0506yDSgU7M?t=760). So couldn't he have just reinstalled the desktop environment? :D

Hey, remember that time when Linus promoted a kickstarter scam? https://youtu.be/VHjmlQdzpW4

They have been misleading people for years with inaccurate test results and reviewing products when they have a conflict of interest.

Yeah, it was the worst video about GNU/Linux I've ever seen. The whole idea was stupid from the beginning: let's be ignorant and try to use a new operating system we don't know anything about, spend 5 minutes on research and definitely don't ask anybody for help.

Linus's issue was caused by some new bug in Pop OS, but he ignored the warning message and even typed "DO AS I SAY"! But of course the conclusion had to be that GNU/Linux is not ready yet. I'm pretty sure he could have just downloaded Steam from their website instead.

The most annoying part was the response from the community. Instead of criticizing his ignorance and incompetence, people were praising him for finding a bug 🤦.

Windows X11

They did improve the design for sure. Also the features. It only took them 15 years to implement tabs in Windows Explorer and over 20 years to include a package manager.

You can have multiple operating systems installed and choose which one you want to use during boot. So just install GNU/Linux on a separate partition or a separate drive (a bit easier). Then try to use GNU/Linux as your main system. Install everything you need on it and configure it they want you want. Only switch to Windows when you absolutely have to. So you don't have to be a GNU/Linux expert right away and you can choose when to remove Windows. It can be a gradual change.

I don't know any good videos for beginners, but you can just look up answers to specific problems when you need them. If you will still have Windows, there is nothing to worry about. You can always ask for help here as well. So don't wait and install GNU/Linux today! Choose the distribution you want to use, find a video on how to install it and start using it.

Here is a link to a video explaining the Free Software movement if you are curious why this operating system was created https://youtu.be/Ag1AKIl_2GM. Maybe it will motivate you.

Cryptocurrency has properties that are valuable to its users. It can let you pay online anonymously. It's decentralized and doesn't require trusting a bank or some company. I use it for those reasons. So it is useful, but the author of the video doesn't even know that.

They are both often promoted as ‘investments’

But that's not what they are made for. People can use them as investments if they wish and gamble with their money, but that says nothing about this technology, since it's not its purpose. If you want to warn people about the risks of such investment, I approve. But calling cryptocurrency or NFT a scam is wrong and doesn't make any sense.

Your response is exactly the kind of handwaving that commonly pervades tech companies and led to crypto being popularized as a financial product. The reality is a lot more complicated, and for that reason there are a lot of problems that stop them being as useful or valuable as people want them to be.

So what do you want to criticize exactly? The technology? Fine, but then you need to understand how it works and you probably should use it at least once. Or do you want to criticize people gambling with their money? That is also fine, but then it has nothing to do with the technology itself. In that case naming the video "The Problem With NFTs" would be misleading.

If you have specific arguments against the Line Goes Up video I’d be interested to hear them, as I thought it was quite a good take.

I rewatched a few chapters just now, but let's focus on the Bitcoin chapter. The video contains a few valid criticisms, but they are mixed with a lot of incorrect information, invalid comparisons, false statements and author's personal opinions. He omits a lot of facts, which makes it clear he doesn't understand the subjects he is discussing.

Chapter 1 - Bitcoin (07:09)

08:35 He says that talking about cryptocurrencies requires discussing technical details and terminology, which is partially created to be "deliberately obtuse to make them difficult to understand and thus appear more legitimate". The author seems to believe that there is some kind of conspiracy of programmers to often make it difficult to understand technology on purpose, but he fails to provide even one example of this. It's a ridiculous accusation. Modern technology is just complicated and takes time to understand for non-technical people.

10:25 He claims that the only commercial use for Bitcoin is black markets, which is false. There are stores that accept Bitcoin and if they don't, you can use Bitcoin to buy gift cards for any store (there are websites that sell them). People who actually buy illegal things online don't even use Bitcoin, because of its public transaction history. They use Monero. The author is stuck in 2009.

11:08 "Bitcoin was never designed to solve the problems created by the banking industry" - it's a trust-less system, so it has already solved at least one problem - the problem of trust when handling transactions. I can send money to anyone in the world without an intermediary.

11:30 "change of the guard is an illusion" - he is listing some rich people who use cryptocurrency. This it not an argument for anything. It's irrelevant who uses cryptocurrency and what their beliefs are.

12:35 He says that some of the larger institutional holders of cryptocurrency are the same investment banks, which created the market crash. He doesn't explain why this is relevant, but I suspect he means that because of this it's not safe to keep any significant amount of money in crypto. In that case it might be a good point, but having large amounts of money in crypto is not required in order to use it.

15:30 Proof of work algorithm makes it difficult for poor people to mine Bitcoin. That is true, but mining is not the only way to get Bitcoin. Other than buying it with cash, people could also receive crypto as payment for their work.

16:45 He is comparing the energy consumption required for global usage of Bitcoin to local energy usage of a small country. This is not a valid comparison. He should have compared it to other global industries like banking or gaming.

17:10 He says that banking also requires a lot of power, but can handle more transactions. That is true, but Bitcoin is probably the slowest cryptocurrency. The other ones are still slower than VISA, but he should have mentioned that other coins are better in that area, because it's not 2009 anymore and technology keeps progressing. So his argument is correct here, but he forgot to mention other relevant facts.

17:45 He calls cryptocurrency users gambling addicts, which shows his bias. He doesn't understand that this technology can be used for online payments or for sending money to your friends. Bitcoin does use a lot of electricity, but so does gaming and that's just entertainment. That doesn't mean we should get rid of it.

He also completely forgot to mention in both his Bitcoin and Etherum chapters that proof of work is not the only used algorithm. Etherum doesn't use proof of work anymore, so it doesn't use as much power. This shows that the problem of power usage can be solved. Bitcoin is not the only cryptocurrency and technology keeps improving. But this didn't stop the author from saying that Etherum doesn't solve any problems with Bitcoin at the end of Etherum chapter (24:17). The switch to proof of stake algorithm happened after the video has been released, but he knew it was gonna happen, which he mentioned at the end of chapter 8 (1:31:29). Yet he refused to believe that it would happen, because of his bias. His prediction has failed, since it did eventually happen.

Chapter 8 "There Is No Privacy On The Chain" (1:25:36) is equally ridiculous. The author apparently hasn't heard of Monero. He also doesn't even understand what it means that something is decentralized.

A better way to describe it would be via the greater fool theory: the only way to make money is to find someone even more foolish than yourself to buy it.

Cryptocurrency is not about making money. It's a distributed ledger. Technology like that could maybe be a scam if it didn't do what its creators claim it does. But it's been around for a long time and we know exactly how it works.

Crypto as it is currently implemented is inefficient, riddled with problems, and is deflationary which you can argue about but most economists would say deflationary currencies are bad as they lead to shrinking economies and do not encourage investment.

It has problems, but like every technology it keeps improving. I choose to use it despite its flaws and will probably use it even more in the future.

There also aren’t that many problems that it ‘solves’ that aren’t already solvable by existing tech.

It gives me privacy and anonymity when paying online. No other online payment technology does. It also doesn't require trust, since it's decentralized. I'm not aware of any other technology that solves those problems.

I think crypto will always have a niche, especially for black markers. I don’t think anything similar to currently existing crypto currencies will ever be adopted for widespread use as legal tender.

That's possible, but over time it is accepted by more and more stores. So it keeps growing. But even if it didn't, you can use crypto to buy gift cards for any store. It doesn't have to be popular.

And as the other commenter pointed out, the tax situation is a nightmare. Even if you don’t sell online yourself, that’s a big hurdle to crypto achieving what many supporters claim it can do.

When someone wants to invest in crypto, I can see how that could be a problem. I just use it to pay for things online.

I agree, but isn't that the job for the government?

Do you not have anything constructive to say?

I could go to the local ATM and buy Bitcoin anonymously right now. So, unlike a credit card, it can be used anonymously. Monero is better of course and it doesn't matter how many people use it. Even if a store doesn't accept it directly, you can use it to buy gift cards for any store.

I don't care what most crypto people do, it's irrelevant, just like the price is irrelevant and doesn't affect my ability to use this technology.

If you have statistics on power usage, I would love to look at them.

And you still haven’t gotten back to me on how AI improves society. People too lazy to learn to draw can say they drew something they actually didn’t? That’s not improvement.

If I want to make a game, but I can't create music and AI could do it for me, that would be very useful. I would be willing to pay for such program. Or if it could write a program that automates something for you, makes your job or your life easier somehow, that would be pretty nice, wouldn't it? It lets people do things that they might not be able to do otherwise, because nobody is an expert in every field. If that's not an improvement for you and you think it's silly - that's fine, but keep in mind that we barely just started to use this technology for something useful and it will keep improving.

And for online payments?