OG Oblivion was super green. So much that the remaster, despite having natural lighting, looks brown in comparison.

I don’t know the specifics of how the law is implemented but the self driving levels are defined such that from SAE level 3 onward you may have a case against manufacturer. I haven’t kept up to date with Tesla SAE level but I imagine they’re still officially on level 2 because it lets them keep their hands clean.

I’m terms of working hours it could get better. You might end up doing 0 hours a week, because you’ll be unemployed.

On the Steam Deck? Possible. On Steam? I guess technically possible if you add a third party game. But actually on Steam? Nintendo can’t even give a tech demo out for free, I can’t imagine what would have to happen for Nintendo to put their games on Steam.

You can also play Minecraft on the Steam Deck and technically you can also play Apex Legends on the Deck (if you install Windows and play through that), but all of it depends on the user being a tinkerer. But the casual gamer is not a tinkerer which means those possibilities have next to no impact on the wider market.

Absolutely. Nintendo has huge fanbase with most of them not caring about Nintendo ripping them off and Nintendo has some of the most highly regarded and iconic gaming IPs in the world and Nintendo has insane marketing budget behind the Switch 2 and the switch doubles as a home console.

I love the Deck but it’s not going to outsell the Switch and I think Valve isn’t interested in pulling people away from the Switch. Valve made the Deck primarily for Steam users and that’s who they’re targeting.

It’s hardly controversial. Marx envisioned that a revolution would happen when the working class (the majority of any society) becomes class conscious and usher in socialism. That in essence would be a vigilant population.

The issue with popular presentation of Marxism is that what is presented is actually Leninism. Lenin is the one who thought proletariats can’t become class conscious (or vigilant) on their own and instead require a vanguard party of revolutionaries to lead the proletariat into communism. How that worked out is evident from the USSR.

My one question would be “How?”

What the hell are you doing that your hard drives are overheating? How do you even know it’s overheating as I’m like 90% certain hard drives (except NVMe if we’re being liberal with the meaning of hard drive) don’t even have temperature sensors?

The only conclusion I can come to is that everything he’s saying is just bullshit.

Javascript is fun. The video takes a few jabs at ruby and then gives a glimpse into the insanity that is Javascript.

How about we just speed up ourselves? Build a human sized LHC and leave it running for a few millenia.

I remember one time I had an informal work related sitting and my boss asked if I could come. I told him that I can’t because it’s my week to babysit the 2yo and he was “just bring him along, it’ll be fine.” So I took him along and then spent the rest of the night babysitting him because my child is a fucking force of nature. He doesn’t tire, he will go wandering, he will touch everything and he will throw anything he can get his hands on. So when his nap time came and I had to take him home my boss said “I don’t remember my children being that hard.”

And that’s when I understood that if you have no siblings you were a fucking menace as a child. Parents who have more children do so because they thought the first one wasn’t that bad.

Never liked that rule. The king should be a capturable piece and be allowed to step into checks. It might make the game harder at a beginner level but it gets rid of the anticlimactic stalemates. It won’t get rid of draws because the repetition rule still applies.

Yeah. I could see someone ordering a combo and then complain when instead of a combo they have to pay for burger, fries and drink. It’s stupid that 5 guys doesn’t have a combo option but the person behind the counter did what they’re supposed to do, take the order and make sure the person ordering also understands what they’re ordering.

That has been gone over by Marx over 150 years ago. I’m not going to go over everything Marx said about capitalism, he wrote an entire book called Das Kapital about it. Here’s a summary that does a pretty good job at getting Marx’s ideas across. You can skip the first 2-3 chapters as the main criticism of capitalism starts around chapter 4. But some things refer back to the previous chapters so you might want to watch them if some parts of Marx’s ideas aren’t very clear.

As for you points, I’ll do a short summary:

• Production of commodities and services is not capitalistic, we’ve been producing commodities and services for more than a millennia before capitalism was even a concept.
• Profit-motive is a poorly defined concept if we want to divorce it from capitalism. Profit-motive in the sense that I want to make all the money is capitalistic. But if we talk about the “profit-motive” in the sense that I want money so I could buy things I want to use, Marx argues that is not capital and not capitalism.
• Marx has a very specific definition of capital where capital is something that exists for the purpose of making more capital. If you make $10 mil and you buy a fancy house, that $10 mil you got is not capital and the house you bought is also not is not capital, but if you take that $10 mil and you for instance invest it with the purpose of getting $20 mil later, now it’s capital. The capitalist definition of capital doesn’t acknowledge the purpose money or things, so everything is capital which also makes it impossible to separate capital accumulation from just owning things you need to live your life. Your house is not capital, your car is not capital, your phone is not capital, the money you’re saving up for a trip to the Bahamas is not capital. But if you own a company and the means of production within that company and you’re buying in labor to use your means of production so you could siphon surplus value from the laborers work, that’s capital.

The things you’ve brought up aren’t necessarily the basis of capitalism. They’re the basis of capitalism only if you want them to be the basis of capitalism.

I think you’re now suggesting things that have nothing to do with consolidating communities.

Backup communities don’t really exist right now. There are copies of things on other servers l, but they can’t become functioning communities. This has caused some communities to disappear when their instance went down. The biggest I remember is movies and TV related things.

They don’t exists right now, but the foundation is there. I checked the old kbin.social communities that users from lemm.ee had subscribed to. All the posts seem to be there right until kbin.social got shut down. The data exists on your instance even if the original instance went down. It’s just a matter of figuring out and creating a new functionality to revive those communities on a new instance. This suggestion has nothing to do with consolidation, it’s just a backup solution that can already be done.

Having a ledger helps with discovery, because instances now don’t know about other communities by default, it requires extra effort to seek them out until someone else has found them and subscribed. It’s not a big deal for established communities, but it does hurt building a new one.

I don’t see how that specifically requires a ledger but I guess we can call it a ledger. The solution itself is fairly simple, each instance publishes whenever a new community is created or deleted and federated instances can store that data on their side to have a list of all the communities to search for. For already existing we can create a “publish all existing communities” so each instance can update their lists accordingly. That’s effectively a ledger but once again, it has nothing to do with consolidating communities.

I don’t have a great solution for admin of creation/movement of communities, but this isn’t meant to be a 100% solution. Distributed consensus is a concept that exists though.

Distributed consensus is a concept but is such complexity necessary? Especially when the end result isn’t that much different to what we already have.

There’s no reason a community can’t go on a users instance as default, it just enables a community to potentially migrate for various reasons.

It can, but it doesn’t really matter because that’s exactly how the current system works. As for migrations, if we solve the “backup community” problem then that functionality can just as well be used for migrations because right now we can just duplicate data. If you want to add the one community restriction that migration actually gets harder to implement.

This doesn’t necessarily create a walled garden, as no one owns the walls. It does encourage everyone within Lemmy to maximally federate. I can’t say it significantly changes integration with other implementations as they were never very robust in the first place.

Kbin/Mbin integrations with Lemmy worked pretty well, but if you force all Lemmy instances to use a solution unique to Lemmy then you’re pretty much building a wall because integrations with other similar implementations become less likely. Nobody owns the wall but it would create an “in” group and an “out” group. We already kinda have that with Lemmygrad and Hexbear and the rest of Lemmy, but those two instances can exists independently from the rest of Lemmy so the “in” and “out” groups can easily coexists. But if you force communities across instances you’re going to also force friction between the “in” and “out” groups. There can only be one “c/europe” but there’s one on Lemmygrad and there’s also one on feddit. If you keep the feddit one then Lemmygrad and Hexbear can’t have c/europe and if you let Lemmygrad have c/europe then the rest of Lemmy can’t have c/europe. It’s unnecessary friction.

I guess it would work if Lemmygrad and Hexbear were federated with the rest of Lemmy, but that’s not happening.

But that’s effectively what we’ll have right now. You can create multiple communities of the same name but one will eventually become the main community that people will visit. And we could already create “backup” communities because I’m pretty sure the data from the main community is already sent to all the instances that have users who are subscribed to said community. The data is already in other instances, it’s just a matter of reusing the data.

So the only crux of your solution is how the possible instance for the community would be chosen. And that’s a whole can of worms. It can’t be the same instance the community creator is a part of because that’s the solution we have right now. It can’t be completely random because I’m pretty sure there are instances that legally can’t have porn or piracy on their instance, or maybe the instance owner simply doesn’t want that on their instance. If there’s supposed to be distributed ledger that effectively prevents creating duplicate communities and that ledger is the same for all instances, then there must be a possibility that the new community ends up in an instance the community creators instance might be defederated from, otherwise a “pariah” instance (who are pretty much defederated from the majority of Lemmy) can reserve community names by defederating everyone and then creating communities. So that decision starts to have a lot factors which lets instances influence the decision. And in some ways there’s even an incentive to influence the decision because the more communities one instance has the more power they have over the entire lemmy side of the fediverse. If they defederate from another instance that instance can’t create those communities for the people on that instance (unless you go down the reddit route of having gaming vs games vs truegames).

And that’s just the decision of the primary source. There’s a whole other bucket of questions about the distributed ledger. For example how does the ledger change? If one community needs to be moved to a different instance who makes that decision? If it’s the primary source instance then how do other instances verify the ledger? If you have Instances A, B, C and C and instances A and B are defederated from C. Instance A has a community that gets assigned to instance D. Instance A sends a ledger change to instances B and D and then instance D send the change to C, but how does instance C know that the sent data is correct? Instance D could send the message that instance A set the community to instance B and there’s no way for instance C to verify that message. In fact most of my questions in my previous comment apply to the ledger as well because the ledger would have to exists on every instance.

And then there are other factors like what if Mbin sets up a community/magazine? Mbin doesn’t care about any ledger. Will we turn Lemmy into a walled garden and prevent Mbin from participating because they don’t want our ledger?

How would that even work? Imagine you spin up a brand new instance and create a new user and want to subscribe to a community. Because there is no one source of truth does the new instance simply not have the posts and comments that were made before the instance was created? If it’s supposed to get historic data as well from where is it getting from? Does it pick a random instance and pull all the posts and comments from that instance?

What if that instance is defederated from another instance with the same community and doesn’t contain the posts and comments from the defederated instance? Does your new instance have to go ask all the posts and comments from all the other instances to rebuild the community dataset on your instance? What if these two instances that are defederated both create the same post with the exact same content? Is that one or two posts?

What if user on one instance changes the name of the post but there’s some weird bug that allows only half the instances to register that change. Did that change actually happen or not? How do you solve the data inconsistencies if there’s no central source of truth?

What about moderation? There’s no central authority to define moderators or moderation policies. How do you verify who is actually a moderator and not someone trying to impersonate a moderator? What if different instances have different moderation policies, how would communities agree on a moderation policy if in essence both instances can claim authority over the community?

And these are still pretty high level questions. It would get more complex if we were to dig deeper into a possible solution. Even if it’s all technically solvable I think the solution would probably be so complex that it becomes unmaintainable which means it becomes unusable.

True, but the same issue happens with reddit as well, for example gaming vs games vs truegaming. Over time those communities either found their niche (gaming sub became mostly memes, games sub became news and discussions and truegaming tried to become a more serious discussing sub). Actually there were way more gaming subs but unless they found their niche they died out. So people gravitating towards specific communities is a natural occurrence.

As for trying to automatically consolidate communities across instances, it sounds like a great idea on paper but seems like technical she moderation headache, because you won’t have a clear source of truth. Let’s say instance A and instance B both have a community called news. The same news article with the same title is posted on both communities on both instances by different users. Assuming we want to consolidate those posts into one, which instance post will be shown or in more technical terms, which instance becomes the source of truth for that post? Who makes that decision? What if there’s also instance C with the same community and the same post but that instance isn’t federated with instance A, how do we consolidate posts? Each community has its own moderators and moderation rules, who is allowed to moderate the post? What if the moderation rules contradict between instances and both instances want to apply the rules independently, are they supposed to split the post?

Maybe there is an elegant solution to all the problems but I don’t see there being one. I’m not against the idea, the problem is you want to solve its something I have given some thought and because of that I just don’t see it working out the way you’re imagining it.

Some people on the internet are saying it’s okay to not support Palestine because they’re not pro LGBTQ enough.

It’s an insane argument to make so I guess that’s why OP feels like it’s CIA.

Just pointing out you’re the one living in cuckoo land.

I guess next you’re going to call AI generation fanfic.

From Gemini:

Is this manifesto political? (removed the manifesto to save space)

Yes, this manifesto has strong political undertones.

Here’s why:

Focus on Systemic Issues: It criticizes the US healthcare system, the dominance of large corporations (like United), and the perceived corruption and greed within these entities. These are all significant political issues.
Calls for Action: While the author doesn't explicitly advocate for violence, the act itself and the language used ("parasites," "brutal honesty") suggest a desire to disrupt the existing power structures. This implies a call for change, which is inherently political.
Critique of Power Dynamics: The manifesto highlights the imbalance of power between corporations and the American public, arguing that the public has allowed this imbalance to persist. This analysis of power dynamics is central to political discourse.

Disclaimer: This analysis does not condone the actions described in the manifesto.

Note: The indecipherable words make it difficult to fully understand the author’s intended message.

Same question with chatGPT.

Yes, Luigi Mangione’s manifesto contains political elements. It critiques systemic issues, such as the healthcare system in the United States, corporate power, and societal complacency. By highlighting the disparity between healthcare costs and life expectancy, as well as the influence of large corporations, the manifesto engages with political and economic structures.

However, the political nature of the document is more implicit than explicit—it critiques systemic issues but does not explicitly outline a political ideology or program. The tone also suggests a personal justification for extreme actions, which can blur the lines between political and personal motives.

It’s sad when even a braindead AI is smarter than you.