aasatru @ aasatru @kbin.earth

Just passing through. 🮲🮳

---

Read more

Posts

2

Comments

384

Joined

1 yr. ago

Discussing politics at Lemmy.ml was a mistake to begin with - they're doing us all a favour by nuking it. :)

This comment is beautiful. Always vote.

Less, beautiful, more wordy:

1. Even if you don't manage to flip a seat, your neighbours who feel the same hopelessness as you will look at the results at some point. Your vote will make them know they are not alone. It matters.
2. Any change in the right direction is significant, and worth fighting for - voting for it is a no-brainer. The margins might make the difference between people voting or giving up staying at home at the next election.
3. They won't you to believe you shouldn't even bother. Don't fall for it.
4. Georgia flipped the Senate seat in '22, for the first time since the 90s. It's possible.

Go vote, folks.

I guess they would want some cybersecurity software like Crowdstrike in either case? If so, this could probably have happened on any system, as it's a bug in third party software that crashes the computer.

Not that I know much about this, but if this leads to a push towards Linux it would be if companies already wanted to make the switch, but were unwilling because they thought they needed Crowdstrike specifically. This might lead them to consider alternative cybersecurity software.

This is where people mess up when they judge the past in the eyes of the present. Communism in Marx' time had nothing to do with the Soviet Union, Mao or China.

In terms of becoming a real competitor of YouTube, this is a huge step. Accessibility is a must.

Amazing news!

That's a great explanation but a really shitty cup of tea.

I think monetisation is more important on Peertube than other federated platforms I can think of.

We want people to post high quality videos on PeerTube. The production of high quality video content requires a lot of work and often also a decent chunk of money to produce. It's not like a toot or a post on Pixelfed, which is often not labour intensive at all. A photographer or an artist might very well showcase their work on Pixelfed, or an author their writing on Mastodon, but it would not compete with their business idea as people who are interested would still need to buy prints/high resolution versions/ebooks/subscriptions/whatever.

On PeerTube, it's very different. We want content creators to not only put money and time into creating quality content, but ideally we want them to host the content themselves in order to maintain full control over it. Without monetisation there's just no reason why they would be interested in doing that.

The question of how is of course much more difficult than the why.

Sponsorships is one obvious candidate. In theory this wouldn't require anything extra from Peertube - the producers of videos could easily add their own ads within the videos. However, sponsors are only interested in sponsoring content that has an audience, and the audience is on YouTube. Sponsored content is also potentially bad for obvious reasons.

Donations might make more sense, as they scale better to smaller but dedicated audiences. It is difficult to get people to cross the threshold for making them, but it's not exactly easy to make a profit on YouTube either. Donations good because they encourage quality, rather than ads which tend to favour views over substance.

So finally, traditional ads. We all hate them. They suck, and if they're incorporated they'll probably be blocked anyway. But I'm sure there's a case to be made in their favour - if it's implemented on the instance level, I certainly wouldn't be in a position to criticize. It could be necessary in order to host content on free instances, where people could build a following and then move on to self-hosting or join more restrictive ad-free instances should they get the opportunity to.

Personally I wouldn't be opposed to having a sort of virtual tip jar functionality. I could imagine myself paying $25 into a virtual wallet maintained by Liberapay, and to press a button underneath PeerTube videos to donate $1 to the creator whenever I found something was worthy of kudos. Maybe users with non-empty wallets could be rewarded with extra filters in Sepia search or something like that.

The best answer to why monetisation hasn't been figured out on PeerTube yet is, however, that it hasn't been figured out on the Internet in general. It's just really difficult, and every push towards monetisation tends to be the first step towards any service becoming completely shit. It's a really difficult problem. The Fediverse and PeerTube might solve some problems by being less dependant on monetisation in the first place, but that doesn't automatically make it an easy fix. More than anything we probably need an attitude change.

A good start would be to challenge the culture that makes monetisation so difficult, for example by making a donation to FramaSoft. Or simply make active use of the "support" button that already exists under many PeerTube videos. :)

In Denmark and Norway the "with best regards" acronym is healthy and well, and I doubt it'll disappear any time soon.

Mvh Aasatru

I'm just here because I hate capitalists.

I also hate stalinists, so the joke is on me I guess.

In my city cycling is faster even if you're not stuck in traffic because you can take one way streets and shortcuts. During rush hour it's not even comparable.

I have a pretty comfy saddle, and if it's too bumpy I prefer cycling standing up anyway. Don't really get why people insist so much on sitting down all the time.

It's not reasonable, but it is understandable. This is why FOSS is the only viable alternative for sustainable computing.

My favourite type of posts is the ones by people signed up in one instance, posting in a community hosted by another instance about how they don't understand how they are supposed to make use of federation. And then often still not getting it when people from all over the web tell them that they already are.

It makes sense though - federation is sold as a feature for users, but when done right the users should hardly notice it at all. So of course people end up a bit confused.

Seems like a community that has it's natural home at programming.dev.

There's a genocide going on with what appears to be more or less the full support of the countries that make up the defence union my country is a part of.

There's war in Europe.

I find those topics worthy of discussion, and any social media where this is not actively discussed seems to me to be a smokescreen more than anything.

Of course tragic realities like the genocide we are complacent in, climate change, war in Europe, Russian propaganda and the rise of the far right is going to be actively discussed. It concerns more or less everyone who uses this platform, and they are the most important issues of our time. It's not about negativity, it's about coming to terms with reality and seeking to understand it.

That said, the communities I follow are largely apolitical stuff that interests me. Woodworking, knitting, gardening, owls, art, and the Fediverse. With the exception of !europe@feddit.de and !energy@slrpnk.net, I let the political stuff come through the cracks rather than actively following it.

I also have a Piefed account on which I follow news communities but actively filter out Trump and Musk. I can see how Amercians still feel the need to talk about these men, but at the end of the day they're just fascist attention whores.

At some point recognisability is also worth something. I can immediately read this graph, I understand it, it's good.

Occasionally it's used in a confusing way where people assume it starts at zero despite it not being the case, and sometimes intentionally so. But that's just the case here.

Well, it does make sense, doesn't it?

What we're interested in is not the number of users, but the trends: whether the number is increasing or decreasing over time. Starting the axis at 0 would not be useful in this regard, as the trend would be almost completely obscured.

It varies everywhere, even from state to state in the US.

The US system is kind of broken - they ask you to vote for way too many things. Where I'm from I just vote for a party - I basically say "yeah, the green party are cool", and then the party decides who to put in which position should they get enough votes. I can give a +1 to candidates I like personally, but I don't have to.

In the US you might be asked to vote for school boards, a sheriff, and a bunch of weird positions. There's no realistic chance you'll make an informed decision for all of them.

Sadly, it's very important you still vote, because the republicans are using this broken system to fill these positions with far-right lunatics. So basically seek out information as much as you can, but at the end of the day just vote for whichever Democrat is on the ballot whenever in doubt. They're not guaranteed to be good - in fact they're likely to be pretty bad - but they're pretty much guaranteed to be the lesser of two evils.

Still might vary though - local politics are weird, and there are no rules set in stones. Some places you still have decent republicans on the local level (or so I've heard).

Yeah, I think the problem here is a lack of distinction between different types of bike paths. All things considered it could have been a lot worse than this.

How bad is it when you end up cycling into a pit like this, potentially at some speed? Has the water made the soil soft in the road leading the front wheel potentially getting stuck and throwing you off, or will you most likely cycle through with a significant splash and be on your way?

I guess a huge part of it might be the problem of not being able to see so well what's under the water, in case the road has been damaged?