TheObviousSolution @ TheObviousSolution @lemm.ee

About

---

Read more

Posts

1

Comments

700

Joined

2 yr. ago

No, you go to the game to play a power fantasy regardless of how unfair and shitty that fantasy world clearly is because of how your status or your skills help you surpass it. The Elder Scrolls goes that extra step to give you the choice to contribute or fight that unfair and shitty to such an extent that people mod it in when the choice is not given, and the player does not even have to be aware of it.

People play videogames for the control, replayability, and often the narrative (which honestly was never The Elder Scroll's strength), not necessarily to escape the world's problems, problems which some games embrace. At a more basic level, games just need to provide gameplay and a player just needs to explore it.

There's no shortage of games where you play as a jackass in a shitty unfair world. GTA comes to mind.

Woke basically applies to the bigots just realizing and getting worked up by things that had existed for decades. Either they've been dozing off for decades or have been "woken" up to it by propaganda with political undertones, and neither speaks highly of their mental faculties.

Although the thing about The Elder Scrolls in general is that it doesn't hand hold you, so you are free to be a racist bigot and not realize it. They don't force realization onto the player, you can happily adopt and become a tool of the point they are trying to criticize, you can willfully remain as ignorant as you would be in real life. In contrast to Starfield, where all companions are like the borg, of one mind telling you or nudging you into what you should have actually done.

Hmm, dumbass gives rant against green energy, I see rise in dumbass arguments against green solutions, hmm.

The irony being that I actually face my challenges and you see insurmountable obstacles where there are none in defense of the worst aspects of the industry. But at least you are making your position much more evident, you just want to discourage EVs as a niche product that only works in urban environments that doesn't work in rural or when the temperatures drop below freezing, and seem to be quite hostile to premises that could easily change and disprove that notion. Why, ego or something else, I wonder.

Don't worry, my idea clearly isn't meant for people like you, so don't worry your pretty little head off.

So something a swappable and universal battery design would solve that would allow lithium to be phased out by sodium batteries and would allow the usage of only the amount of batteries you'd actually need. So why are you against that as well? Or just BEVs in general?

Nice straw man, and a powerfully ignorant one too, given how many EVs it would ignore the existence of simply because they would not fulfill your criteria.

Oh, and I was kidding, no way in hell would I ever give such an antagonist such a leg up, pearls before swine and all, you've made your choice and the industry is quite happy to cater to it.

And thanks for the work in your branch, it has kept mbin alive. As I understand it, ActivityPub is an open standard for relaying information that is distinct from how the back-end operates, and it operates with very generic concepts like Objects, Activites, and Actors, so I suspect it can be adapted even if I don't know it to the degree that you do. Each user could engage in a community and their contribution would be treated as a multicast hosted on the home instance which the rest of the servers could pick up and update on their end, for example.

Querying for comments and posts in a community could first return local and then the cached for remote content that would update on demand, delaying if necessary, applying the implementation specific decentralization mechanism of choice. Maybe Librecast would be an option, I don't know any-end. Moderation could be applied to the result as a personal preference and in multiple layers by choosing which moderator activities and groups you would accept or ignore, and moderator groups could be treated as entities owned and coordinated by their leaders.

Users behaves badly, user is removed. Instance does not want to deal with certain users from other instances, they block them. They could coordinate general admin decisions between instances, they just would manifest direct control over communities. If they don't like how certain communities behave, they would have options, they just wouldn't have complete control and communities could criticize the application of those options without compromising their entire being. Instances could ban misinformation, but what one instance considers misinformation another might not. Moderators could become trusted instance enforcers and automatically help enforce misinformation filters for the instance groups they cooperate with. It would basically be another layer of abstraction between the community and the host moderators.

Communities could accommodate different schools of thought within the same community and without each other calling the other troll and banishing their participation, one would just have to shift between the moderator groups they want. Instances could step in, but exceptionally, making people's choice of instance matter more. It would be extremely easy to set up a ground.news social network alternative in this context that wouldn't have to devolve into two extremes, but things like downvotes and mod actions would have to be transparent because of how dynamic and customizable the system would have to be.

The problem in the software world isn't usually that there is no choice, it's that there is no will. The obstacles are not insurmountable, there's just no interest in overcoming them I think. I know you can speak for yourself, but I don't think you can speak for the main lemmy (lemmy.ml) devs, mbin is already much more transparent than lemmy is.

You mean for your highly specialized need that the majority of potential EV drivers currently turned off by the step costs don't need? Sure, let me just make a note, since the solution is scalable, even working in the energy demand of a heater.

The problem is that in those cases it is still a proprietary market.

So, just so you know, you can purchase 96V batteries that weigh less than 30 kg and can be connected in series to provide well over 400V, and if you want more range you can install bigger ones. EV ones weight that much because of the range, which is less of a factor if they can be swapped. They are made up of cells which are individually far below 400v, and there are standardized Anderson connectors that can safely connect and disconnect +600V and are used all the time. The cost of a battery is a non-factor is you are just renting them like you are sort of expected to do with butane tanks. 50V is the limit where you usually begin receiving a shock at, but 400V is not really considered high voltage and can be easily handled with the proper connectors and failsafes, like not swapping with a load.

It's better than letting the general public fry themselves trying to fuel their cars with an ignitable combustible.You are not dealing with rubbing alcohol. /wildscaremongering

Battery technology is something I'm constantly swapping out for myself with ease, but that's because I don't make my own mental blocks. So do owners who retrofit gas cars to EVs. My goal is to retrofit an older EV car so that I don't have to pay around $5000 to $15000 of overpriced proprietary batteries. It is a long-term goal, but be happy, it is not one that could be shared because the only way to do so would be in a society open to it.

So where is the development interest for less monolithic instance control then? Everything I read indicates a movement towards it, with less transparency that can be federated (like not allowing downvotes and moderation to truly be transparent and there's no interest in making communities that aren't localized to single instances by making its moderation be something that can be something that can be applied and decided at the user or each instance level.

This would also mean inherently allowing user participation in a community regardless of how much an instance doesn't want it (as long as it is not their home instance, which would be the ones in charge of removing spam/bot/CSAM) if a particular selection of a moderation group does not allow it. Communities are monolithic by design, limited to an instance's moderation and then to that instance's administration and then furthermore by its availability.

I'm sure that the availability of time and effort are a factor, it would require dealing with new and different issues, it might require leaving some monolithic aspects, but it fails before it gets at that point, there is no interest nor is it where development wants to head. Communities are monolithic and will essentially remain monolithic. The only thing that is federated is essentially the search features and pseudo-SSO of Lemmy.

Battery replacements really are not difficult, I'd seriously recommend not imagining obstacles where there are not.

Without special installations, charging takes several hours instead of a quicker battery swap (which you could take with you as extra weight). DC chargers cannot even be installed at how home due to their requirement. Swappable batteries are possible and would make EV cars adaptable to new and different battery technology, they are just not designed that way.

Some, like the XBus, talked about allowing it, and it is perfectly possible, it just isn't going to come out of traditional car manufacturers who had to be dragged to develop anything EV or manufacturers like Tesla who want to make range a subscription feature. Let's not even go into EV range extension trailer systems, which would be as effortless as swapping trailers.

You can get them at Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=gas+tank

You aren't making a point if you are trying to equate the distribution network for gas, which is so ubiquitous that there is no need for the sort of trucks that distribute butane tanks to EV batteries, which require specialized facilities for fast charging, which also deteriorates batteries faster, or otherwise take half a day of charging. EV battery swapping bans already exist for things like scooter rentals.

There are already standarized sizes, voltages, and ports using in autocaravans which could be connected in series ideally through BMS to provide the voltages EV cars would need and would even be simpler through already prepped trailer systems. Four 96V batteries (can go up to six) in series connected safely through Andersen connectors would be enough for a basic EV car, that's less than 30kg LiFePO4 each, making it swappable on the spot, less dangerous than lithium, and open to a large market of providers.

Over the longterm, and they also require a lot less maintenance because they don't have to deal with mini-explosions from combustion generating excess heat and stress. The problem is in the battery, and the industry hasn't even scratched the surface for solutions.

I see trucks carrying butane tanks all the time, where are the trucks carrying EV battery replacements? There aren't because the industry wants to charge extra for fixed installation ones depending on capacity and charging capacity and there is absolutely no profit incentive that offsets other losses to standardize battery systems in a way they can be easily extensible or replaceable.

Damn, if only we had more than two options.

"Fuck cars ... but not this car."

At this rate, we need to be making flare bombs and artillery and retrofitting long range naval ships with ramming hulls. It's getting a bit absurd.

Grandma who can't move on her own and doesn't hear very well: What?

I like how we've gone from looking at the huge garbage patches in our oceans to the amount of microplastic in a drop of water. I don't see it as a material issue, you pick a material and with enough quantity it will pollute. It is a consumer society issue. But maybe it will be easier to change consumer society by dangling the microplastic threat effect so the actual cause can be treated - wait, the psychopaths in CEO positions would lose money then, never mind.

The problem is the monopoly money is being used in a confidence game that's being permitted by governments because all they see are more potentially taxable transactions and don't give a shit about what this means for the longterm health of our societies.