Ah, wonderful capitalism working as intended. Everything comes down to money.

Right, most of the complaints people have about Zuckerberg is that he’s a stereotypical tech bro ceo lacking a moral compass.

People calling Zuckerberg a lizard person or robot mostly come from how he talked and acted when under intense public questioning by legislators regarding user privacy and their business model. That’s a high pressure situation where he was coached on what he could and could not say by legal to minimize the fallout, so his awkward expressions and stilted speech are understandable.

People don’t like him because he’s a ruthless ceo, and that requires some level of sociopathy pull off. Musk, on the other hand, actively antagonizes people and seems to thrive on controversy. His primary goal seems to be ego-driven, unlike Zuckerberg who’s solely in it for the money.

I use my HP printer infrequently enough that every time I booted up my inkjet, I had to put it through a printer head cleaning cycle. I’d be surprised if I got more than 20 sheets of paper for each cartridge do to the wasted ink, and the dang thing malfunctioned frequently even after cleaning (streaks, blots, complaining about missing colors when printing b/w, etc).

After switching to a Brother mono laser, I haven’t had to do any maintenance in 3 years and it’s still on the original toner cart which it came with.

This is the way.

Eh, you can improve reporting, time usage, and statistics all you want. It won’t help people stop making stupid short-sighted decisions. If it isn’t middle management, it’ll be the people controlling the AI’s which replace them.

CEO: “AI, give me a plan to improve profits by at least 10% in the next quarter.”

AI: “<insert plan>. Note: enacting this plan will cause talent attrition and there is a 70% chance of -50% revenue over the following 5 years.”

CEO: “Sounds great, I’m retiring next year!”

The people up top have plenty information on how to run a long-term successful business, but still choose to make illogical decisions which screw them over the long term. Changing the source of data to an AI just means that the CEO can ignore any feedback or metrics which don’t agree with their internal model and incentive structure.

Yea, they’re afraid of potential backlash and wanted to float ideas in a safe space.

Oh wow didn’t know that. This is awful - people should defederate from any instances which accept meta money as well

Ideally the list of behaviors which trigger suspicion would be expanded over time, yes? Low hanging for first, just because it’s easy doesn’t mean spammers will program around it unless we check for it.

I find it helps to intentionally “break it in”. Draw something silly, write a bad poem, write a journal entry upside down, freehand a chart/page layout with bad lines, etc. Do something to make it no longer “perfect” to get yourself out of the mindset that the paper pretty notebook deserves a level of care and attention you find exhausting and ultimately disappointing when you can’t keep an insane standard of care.

What makes them nice is the experience of writing on them. Not that the writing in them is a certain quality. Do you go back to your spiral bound notebooks? What if that content were in nice notebooks, would that change your behavior? I’ll bet it depends on the content, not the paper it’s written on.

If you stop writing in them as soon as your writing devolves, let it do that immediately and keep writing. If you want a perfect notebook, the only way to do that is to exhaustively transcribe from another source, and who has the time to do that?

The point of a notebook is to write on it, fancy or plain. If you enjoy the experience of writing on fancy paper, treat that as the goal instead of creating something worthy of the paper. Paper, even expensive paper, is cheaper than the time you spend writing on it. Ergo, give your writing time the paper it deserves, rather than giving the paper the content it “deserves”.

TLDR: Immediately “ruining” the paper can free up your mental block on wasting it. You bought nice paper to write on, but paper quality should not dictate the quality of what goes on it. Unused paper is more wasteful than messy writing.

You can pay for simpler sync, but I use obsidian with syncthing/git, no subscription required, works fine with the mobile app.

Tbh I think obsidian and notion fill different needs. Obsidian is text-first (markdown), doesn’t have the same feature rich blocks that notion does. That’s a good thing and a bad thing, depending on how reactive you want stuff to be. The equivalent to databases is junkies and through a plug in.

Relay until the blackout, browser only now since I’ve uninstalled everything reddit after.

permanent mental scarring

I don’t think this will ever happen. The web is more than a network of changing documents. It’s a network of portals into systems which change state based on who is looking at them and what they do.

In order for something like this to work, you’d need to determine what the “official” view of any given document is, but the reality is that most documents are generated on the spot from many sources of data. And they aren’t just generated on the spot, they’re Turing complete documents which change themselves over time.

It’s a bit of a quantum problem - you can’t perfectly store a document while also allowing it to change, and the change in many cases is what gives it value.

Snapshots, distributed storage, and change feeds only work for static documents. Archive.org does this, and while you could probably improve the fidelity or efficiency, you won’t be able to change the underlying nature of what it is storing.

If all of reddit were deleted, it would definitely be useful to have a publically archived snapshot of Reddit. Doing so is definitely possible, particularly if they decide to cooperate with archival efforts. On the other hand, you can’t preserve all of the value by simply making a snapshot of the static content available.

All that said, if we limit ourselves to static documents, you still need to convince everyone to take part. That takes time and money away from productive pursuits such as actually creating content, to solve something which honestly doesn’t matter to the creator. It’s a solution to a problem which solely affects people accessing information after those who created it are no longer in a position to care about said information, with deep tradeoffs in efficiency, accessibility, and cost at the time of creation. You’d never get enough people to agree to it that it would make a difference.

Translation: you working harder would make me feel less stressed.

That’s great lol

It wouldnt really be full P2P: I’d expect moderated communities to act as a funnel which everyone interacts with each other through. I wasn’t really considering the hypothetical micro instances to be like a normal server, since even when federated its unlikely that they would consume as much federation bandwidth as a large instance. Most people wouldn’t run a community, simply because they don’t want to moderate it.

Realistically, the abuse problems you mention can already currently happen if someone wants to. It’s easier to make an account on an existing server with a fresh email, spam a bit, and get banned than it is to register a new domain ($) and federate before doing the same. I think social networks would have a lot less spam if every time you wanted to send an abusive message, you had to spend $10 to burn a domain name.

Most of the content would still live on larger servers, so you end up moderating in the same place. Not much difference between banning an abusive user on your instance and banning an abusive single-user instance.

So you’re saying that there’s a sweet spot between the number of servers being federated and the number of users per server. I wonder what the optimal network distribution would look like.

Maybe I should clarify with “each user successfully spun up…” I’m mostly curious if the 5000 microservers trying to federate is a more sustainable access pattern than 5000 users hitting the website.

Since federation is an async process, it can be optimized on both ends in a way that user browser requests cannot.

At the same time, federation would overall result in more bandwidth being used because not every user wants to view every post in the frontend.

The funny thing is that I’ve read it to him several times in the past. He just finally understood it well enough to do a double take and think “wait a minute, that seems like a terrible thing to do!”

Can’t wait until my son is old enough that I can say “go hang out with your friends for a few hours” without being irresponsible.

Me: boots up game to de-stress Game: “My name is Malenia, blade of miquella”

Hah, yeah I don’t see people going from “I gotta change my username” to “I gotta change my username and find all my communities in matrix etc.”

I see this as falling under painful but kinda necessary admin, which is nowhere near the level of friction required for a platform switch with massive disruption to communities.

That said, the barrier is lower for chat servers than it is for social media - history matters less in discord than it does for reddit, for example. If the server owners decide to migrate to another platform, they can probably convince people to migrate given a good enough reason and alternative. The people online at any given moment matter more than the last couple months of chat history.