OneCardboardBox @ OneCardboardBox @lemmy.sdf.org

Posts

15

Comments

228

Joined

2 yr. ago

This reminds me of a fake quote attributed to Hideo Kojima:

It says "Try not to cum", but the point of the game is obviously to cum. So yes, I would call that bad game design.

You don’t have to trust banks to not shortsell the housing market with your own money (causing a recession for the entire world)

The way I read this, it suggests that banks shorting the housing market with my deposits caused a global recession.

You're right about the ratings agencies (as far as I know, also from The Big Short), I was skipping over that for brevity.

Unrelated to the overall point you're trying to make, but shorts didn't cause the '08 recession. They just profited from it. The cause was banks treating mortgage backed securities as if they were an unsinkable asset class.

Relating things back to your point though, I'm not convinced that blockchains solve this. Take the crypto crash of spring/summer '22: You have a few products (TerraUSD/Luna, CEL token) "generating" yield that everyone (DEFI, CEFI, retail, institutions) piles on top of. Then that base layer of "value" turns out to be a naked emperor and there's a massive crash when everything based on that system is now backed by nothing. Rigid computerized rules are only as solid as the axioms that underpin them. You can decentralize the interpretation of rules, but somebody can always start with a flawed assumption and then it doesn't matter how reliable your decentralized system is.

As long as any asset can be rehypothecated into another, shinier asset, there's always a risk that the underlying asset is shit. It's no less true in crypto as in conventional banking.

Yeah, but you're arguing for completely different reasons than I'm taking about. They raised a technical concern and that's what I addressed.

Fair, but surely the solution is a "wait and see" approach vs just blocking it completely? Maybe Threads overloads the server for... an hour? A day? Then someone turns it off.

Plus, if there's a lot of data exchanged, doesn't that just mean that a lot of SDF users want what's on Threads, or that users on Threads care about what happens here? Either way, seems like the right move is to keep the channel open if possible.

This could of been for internal reasons, it could of been to fragment the user base knowing they had the most users and would force convergence, we really can’t be sure.

Given the well documented history of Google making absolutely dogshit product decisions, I think it's the former. In fact, I don't even need to think. Google already explained their reasoning. They had several different communication products (including Talk) that couldn't be integrated together. They wanted the services to work seamlessly to try and compete with Messenger.

If chat wasn’t popular among their users, this wouldn’t of been needed.

Sure, chat was probably popular. However, I bet that 99% of their chat users never cared about XMPP compatibility in the first place. When you're a product manager at a billion dollar megacorp who's aiming for a promotion and you have a choice between making 1% of your users sad and massively simplifying the complexity of your new project... you pick the 99%

I joined this instance because I like what SDF does as an organization. It's cool that they offer so many public services that anyone can use if they follow the rules. Supposing Threads ever joins the Fediverse, I'd hope SDF keeps them around as long as it's not harming SDF users.

Crunchbang was the distro that taught me Linux. I needed a *nix style build system for a programming class, and #! looked cool so I went with it. It was a magic moment when I learned how to install software from source.

Sorry, not here to answer your question, just reminiscing. I hope the project is OK.