lennivelkant @ lennivelkant @discuss.tchncs.de

Posts

0

Comments

545

Joined

1 yr. ago

It's my perpetual gripe with many of those open tools that I love ideologically, but practically find lacking in some respects, typically UI/UX (including the pre-experience of the decision whether to use them). I don't have all the skills or knowledge to fix the issues that bother me, as it's often far eaiser to know what's wrong than how to fix it.

I understand and endorse the philosophy that it's unfair to demand things of volunteers already donating their time and skills to the public, but it creates some interdisciplinary problems. Even if capable UX designers were to tackle the issue and propose solutions or improvements, they might not all have the skills to actually implement them, so they'd have to rely on developers to indulge their requests.
And from my own experience, devs tend to prioritise function over form, because techy people are often adept enough at navigating less-polished interfaces. Creating a pretty frontend takes away time from creating stuff I'd find useful.

I don't know if there's an easy solution. The intersection between "People that can approach software from the perspective of a non-tech user", "People that are willing to approach techy Software" and "People that are tech-savy enough to be able to fix the usability issues" is probably very small.

It's so big that it can take a lot of bleeding before it dies. It doesn't help that there is no significant enough consensus yet on an alternative.

It seems like some people are flocking to bsky, probably because it has better visibility and seems more accessible than Mastodon ("What's an instance? How do I pick?"). Others are heading to Threads just because it's there already.

If enough people move to some other platform to generate a critical mass, they'll pull others too. Until then, inertia will keep X rolling a good while to come.

I prefer Mastodon to what is ultimately still a for-profit corporation ("public benefit" notwithstanding), but both are better than Twatter.

The value of distributed redundancy

Given the heavy use of subject-specific jargon, I'd guess as much. I wouldn't go to the length of looking up neuroscience terms just to roast neuroscientists, because that just seems like a poor happy chemical return on the mental energy investment, whatever the proper terms for that might be.

Now, if you'd ask me to build a data model to analyse my unhappiness for key influencers, we're in business.

Or maybe he felt it was a funny implication to make. I know we sometimes have a reputation for being serious, but some of us are just good at deadpan deliveries.

Seems like a case where a particular claim of a select group was generalised over a supergroup by way of being the subject of memes that ran away with the stereotype.

It's like that one fraud falsifying studies about a specific type of vaccines in an attempt to sell his own, only for people to latch on to the "vaccine bad" part of the story without limit, nuance or critical examination.

Does anyone still know where the original "just friends" claim stems from, in which context, supported by which arguments, what refutations have been offered since and just how widespread among archaeologists it is today?

For the elites: conserve their hierarchy and the structures that enable the gradual accumulation of power in the hands of the few.

For the rest: conserve their place in the hierarchy and the comfort of the familiar.

I appreciate that you took the time to supply the nuances I omitted. While there is value in a positive framing, it's important to acknowledge potential struggles as well. We can't effectively tackle issues if we're not aware of them.

In any case, while I'm not qualified to help you with your difficulties, I hope you find - or have found - a way to work on overcoming them. Dealing with insecurities, from my own experience, can be a tough process, further amplified by setbacks and a lack of perceived progress. But if you persevere, even if you might not feel that you have improved much, you may find yourself looking back at a time when it was worse and, by contrast, see the progress you've made. May that hope, that your future self will look back and be proud of your hard work, give you the strength to keep going.

Hourly wages for school teachers? I'm worried I might know the response, but does prep work outside school hours, in breaks etc. count as hours worked?

I considered that option too, but opted to go with the more positive guess. I'm not qualified either way, I just wanted to say something nice.

Well, you sound like a team player. You place the common good (fun together) higher than individual ambitions (or maybe place your own worth very low, I can't tell from one sentence, but the outcome is the same).

Saying deliberately sounds like it's not just a thing that you find yourself doing again and again, but a conscious choice. That suggests there was a choice to make; that the option of playing a self-centered character was something you were actively aware of, but were sufficiently repulsed by it to make a point of being better than those people.

I think you're a nice person, empathetic, while not so entirely innocent as to not even consider the possibility, still principled and caring enough to actively defy it.

I think you're a net good for this world.

In theory, Judges hold individual people accountable, the representatives of the people hold the judges accountable, the people collectively hold their representatives accountable.

However, if a significant part of the representatives refuses to do their job, and the nature of the two-party FPTP system combined with highly effective identity politics makes it hard to hold them accountable for it, the system breaks down.

Linux in general and Arch in particular are kinda laissez-faire in that they'll allow you to shoot yourself in the foot. Some distros may put barriers in your way, others practically hand you the gun, but at the end of the day, the gun is freely available and it's your own foot that you're shooting.

That... that's what they were saying, no? Companies should worry about their shit.

If you don't pay for late checkout, you can't check out late. If you don't pay for the DLC, you can't play the DLC. You can still check out at the normal time (which is the basic service) or play the base game, respectively.

Dammit, EAC may be an issue on Linux though. It's kinda hit or miss whether a given developer will take the extra steps, particularly given the conflicting sources on just how complex it actually is. According to Valve, it's a checkbox and dropping a file in your depot. Others claim it would require an Epic Online Services version of EAC, with all the baggage that carries, including potentially rewriting a whole chunk of your code.

It's like booking a hotel: Basic price will get you a room for the night, with all the common amenities, but if you want late checkout, you'll pay extra. Sure, they could fold that into the basic price and make it the norm, but if you know you'll leave early anyway, you'll be paying for something you don't want.

The metaphor breaks apart if you look too closely - for hotels, early checkout is a convenience since they can get the room ready sooner for the next guest, so they'll incentivise that, while the devs have already put in the work. On the other hand, the late checkout is a service of convenience while a DLC is an excitement feature, where the content is instead an incentive to pay more.

Either way, I feel like add-ons for games aren't too different from add-ons in many other industries: "This is the basic

<thing>

Butterfly gang

The latter has been taken over by ElMu and his shenanigans, the former was originally a Twitter-internal project for a decentralised social media interfacing protocol, got forked out from Twitter in 2021 (the year before Musk took over Twitter), has a lot of Ex-Twitter people on it and promises to do a lot of things a lot better than either Twitter (now X) and offer a little more resilience against things like moderator abuse.

Curiously, that last bit is the first time I've seen a reasonable use case for Blockchain: Your content can be stored on arbitrary servers and migrated to others. Your identity is tied to keys that can be used to verify your content is actually yours. The info where the public half of the key and all your content are stored is recorded in a public, distributed, append-only ledger, where each entry verifies the integrity of the previous one. Thus, once you're registered on that, no single moderator can arbitrarily ban you anymore. (Pretty sure there's a hole in that logic, but I'm not versed enough to confidently assert as much.)

Of course, there's a caveat: To discover content, you need an index ("relay") of all the content feeds. That takes some of the content aggregation load off your individual content servers and makes hosting them easier. However, it shifts the content moderation / federation power from the individual instances to the shared index: If a given index blocks your content, people using it won't see your content.

In theory anyone can host their own relay and everyone can choose which relay they want their content feed to use. In practice, hosting a relay is resource-intensive, bsky have a solid headstart and probably more resources, and their app also obviously uses their own index by default, so if you do want to create a "competitor"/alternative index, you'll have a lot of catching up to do. They even state that expectation: "In all likelihood, there may be a few large full-network providers" ^src

Which is basically a small-scale version of Google and Bing (and the AT Protocol Overview explicitly uses that comparison): Sure, you can make your own search engine, but if Google is the default everywhere, has a lot of storage and computing power to serve more requests and has way more indexed content, why would people use yours instead? Thus, if you want your content to be seen by many people, you have to play by the big relays' rules.

Much decentral. Very open.

(I'm being snarky here, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt: They probably do mean to make self-hosting your personal data and content easier, and it's easier for custom feeds to use single, big relays to draw from rather than doing the indexing and collation themselves. However, it provides them with a lot of leverage and just because they call themselves a "public benefit corporation" doesn't mean I trust them not to start enshittifying for profit at some point.)