• 16 Posts
  • 67 Comments
Joined 2Y ago
cake
Cake day: Jul 18, 2021

help-circle
rss


Socialist aesthetics, dope music, dope images, dope channels— what's your favorite? Where to look?
Snowden claimed surveillance capitalism can only lose on ethical grounds, not on how attractive the alternative superficially seems. What proves this wrong? What images, music, or media in general can I show socialist-curious friends that will have them say "that's dope".
fedilink

Guix. Fully libre. A functional package manager. A scriptable installation that makes reproducibility easy, without the virtualization overhead that solutions like VMs or Docker have.




Isn’t this whole issue a question of research on the channels rather than asking us to vote?










I’m out of the loop regarding Raspberry Pi, Mastodon, and the community. What happened?



I see how your point talks about an apparent contradiction: privacy yes, but privacy no. Thanks for pointing that out, because it’s important to have these conversations.

It could be that Lemmy users dislike states that serve the interests of capital rather than that of, for example, the common good. If you believe the US serves the interests of capital and that China serves the interest of the common good, the contradiction I see that you point out (privacy yes; privacy no) gets resolved. Privacy enthusiasm becomes a response to capitalist data-mining.

Please be aware that I am not idealizing the Chinese state. I am explaining a possible reasoning.


Many would go even further and say that it is precisely because of the ‘cheapening of nature’ that we see many environmental disasters. People who want profits search for low costs and big margins. You know, buy low sell high. Many people fill their bank accounts with money because they bought low and sold high, and are, in practice, indifferent to the environment.

That is why we see the low cost of water that @guojing was mentioning. And that is why some people argue for higher prices for some resources. Of course, charging high prices for energy or water is problematic if it means rich people can afford to screw the environment and poor people can’t afford to live.


Fast and easy Majority Judgment voting (Balinski et all.), where I can choose the judgments, and at any moment add, remove, or disable more voting options or voters.


That’s an interesting title! Unfortunately, I cannot read it because its behind some sort of paywall.



I hope you manage to have your basic needs met and have valuable goals met. However, this place is not for advertising your venture. In fact, this is one of the worst places to advertise, because it’s filled with people who are incredibly critical of the profit motive. Even if you’re somehow not motivated by profit, you are acting like a company that is, so please delete your post and adapt to our community or leave.


Thanks, Lemmy, for being a place for educated, empathetic, and principled people
I had an awful night. I was surrounded by incredibly racist, sexist, ignorant, and insensitive people. I was astounded by the lack of basic knowledge about the world that was possible. I knew conceptually that ignorant people with relative privilege existed, but seeing it in action is another thing. It just hit me in the gut to hear slurs flying around, and hearing unironical defenses for fascism, apartheid, and social Darwinism. This got me thinking. I have to be honest. I sometimes fear Lemmy could be a place for violence and dogma, but after tonight, after being surrounded by absolute pieces of shit, I have to recognize this place is much more special than I gave it credit for. Here in Lemmy, I consistently see posts that reflect a sound understanding of how the world works, be it ecology, politics and economics, programming, heck, even basic sciences. I also see humane concern for the wellbeing of others, regardless of who they are*. *Well, to be fair, maybe I do see a bit less concern for those who are most destroying the livelihoods of others. But even they are sometimes seen as victims of a system. The point is I am grateful for you. I love that you aim to grow your knowledge about the world. I love that you're empathetic and kind*. I love that this place is inclusive and fosters growth among us.
fedilink




I have a smartphone. My friend has a fliphone. How to easily encrypt-decrypt our SMSs?
I am aware this is a meta-data disaster on par with Whatsapp. Such is life.
fedilink



Are Lemmy posts crawl-able by search engines?
Discussions here are often very interesting, and at times incredibly helpful. If I had no clue about Lemmy, but I searched online for a topic that happened to be discussed in Lemmy, will that discussion appear in the search engine? As a related question, do you think the discussion example would show up in the search results in the most informative way? I mean in an search engine optimization-kind of way.
fedilink

Federated, free, and/or open source software will not be chosen over proprietary software unless they overcome this hurdle.
# Innovation requires resources Innovation happens wherever we put our efforts towards. The space race and the technologies it gave us is an example. Finding ways of reducing the cost of production of commodities is another. The green transition is another example. These are the bounds that determine how innovation happens in federated social networks. They will only innovate when there is enough effort put towards them. Beyond technical innovation (perhaps in a TOR kind-of-network way, or in a Git kind-of-version-control way), a full-fledged piece of software that is effective and attractive enough for people to use, takes resources. These resources largely refer to labor power. Remember, we're not talking about maintenance costs, but development costs. Programmers require money to survive. # FLOSS is no exception Yes, FLOSS software can survive with volunteers, but even those volunteers have to pay their bills. Yes, the internet plus (as Bruce Schneier defines it), copyleft licenses, and already-existing technical know-how reduce the cost of production, but the costs are there nonetheless. Someone needs to do the work. I think about open source projects I admire. Diaspora received exceptional funding, relative to its goals. Signal was heavily funded by donations. Element has a business model that lets them work towards improving Matrix. Linux has many companies that depend on it and are able to finance innovation on it. This argument, applied to Lemmy, makes me wonder. How do Nutomic and Dessalines handle it? Are they precious exceptions that drive Lemmy forward because of their personal values and their willingness to use their technical know-how for the development of this platform? Will Lemmy thrive without them? This brings me to another point: FLOSS and federated software has the advantage that many people are willing to spend their time working towards laudable goals. They are not motivated by profit as much as improving humanity. # FLOSS has a problem that others systematically address: making things attractive The issue with FLOSS projects is that they mainly respond to thought-out worldviews. That is, people are willing to engage with this kind of software because of logical reasons (*logos*, as Aristotle and those guys would call it). It is rarer to have people engage with FLOSS and federated software because of emotions (*pathos*). Unfortunately for humans, we are emotional creatures. I get put off by how unattractive the Free Software Foundation's website is, despite loving the values that the foundation stands for. I get put off by using terminals, despite the fact that plenty of FLOSS software does not have GUIs. I hate Thunderbird's calendar, despite using it daily. Companies with investors and FLOSS projects with enough funding know this and therefore pay graphical designers, user experience experts, and sometimes market researchers to make products attractive. This takes money. # Conclusion And that brings us back to my point: for free software to be *chosen* by most people, it has to have enough labor behind it to make it both effective and attractive. This is the hurdle it needs to be overcome. ## Notes on my sources These are reflections that arose after a series of conversations with a friend who works at an 'innovation office'. His job is explicitly to design an 'innovation ecosystem', which attempts to create innovation with minimal investment. Everyone at that office knows this is bullshit. Innovation rarely comes without money. Therefore, they basically look for investors for projects that don't have enough money. That's it. This view, that innovation requires investment, is shared by Anwar Shaikh and classical economics. However, it's more complicated with the research behind innovation. Let's take 'platforms of innovation'. For example, cosmopolitan cities, the internet, and universities are hubs of innovation. However, it's a mistake to think that these are 'neutral' in terms of costs. All of them require operational costs. All of them imply costs of technical training. Even here, there are costs that cannot be ignored. If we look at mission-oriented innovation, the situation becomes clearer. Universities doing cancer-related research, States doing green energy-related research, or companies doing market-related research all clearly align with the argument I made above. Finally, it's perfectly possible that the argument I made above is not at all original. In fact, I doubt it is. If anything, it could be similar to a high-school student discovering their own proof of the pythagorean theorem: it's not new for the community of knowers who already know it, but it's new from the point of view of the student. At least I get to share this with you and hear your thoughts about it. Oh, and given that Lemmy doesn't have terms of service yet, I wanted to make sure I could share this in the future. I licensed it under a [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/). Weird. I know. Oh well. At least you get to share it without fear!
fedilink

The [release post](https://matrix.org/blog/2022/06/16/matrix-v-1-3-release) specifies the spec changes. I'm not entirely sure what the entirety of the change regarding metadata reduction is, but this MSC seems relevant: - Deprecate the sender_key and device_id on m.megolm.v1.aes-sha2 events, and the sender_key on m.room_key_request to-device messages, as per MSC3700. (#1101)
fedilink