I certainly don’t doubt the top line trends here in this study. However, I wonder how the fediverse might differ. Anyone can set up a Lemmy or Mastodon instance, regardless of their technical aptitude and desire to secure the instance from toxic content. It’s also inherently more anonymous. A more direct comparison might be 4chan not Reddit.

Both of the platforms they studied on have more sophisticated methods to determine bad actors because of their dominance. Particularly Facebook, where a profile is supposed to be mappable to a single, real identity.

That being said, there’s a very real concern about how algorithms end up placing these “loud mouths” in other people’s feeds. After all, outrage is still something that is preferred by algorithms. So those 3 to 7% of users creating the toxic content, might represent an outsized proportion of views.

It’s good to know the reality on these platforms is that most people are reasonable. I guess the bigger question is why people come to the opposite conclusion. And I think that algorithms overly indexing on outrage are part of that.

Audhd here, It would be nice if it were a quiet log file. I log straight to the console AND it’s probably with DEBUG enabled.

Yeah as soon as I saw that I went from “must buy” to “eh, maybe if my current laptop breaks”. I mean, I know the iGPU is basically the same as the desktop, but with slower memory it won’t really compare.

Maybe next generation.

You too!? Ha! Today I learned.

I’ll always know exactly how old Linux is. It’s exactly as old as I am.

Eh, it’s more like the pregnancy announcement. Imo the v0.01 release on Sep 17th is a “Birthday”.

But then again I’m biased on this. 🙃

Perfection!

I think I speak for all of Tucson.social when I say fuck this AI bullshit.

I didn’t get the vibe that he didn’t enjoy it. More that he figures that a typical person wouldn’t enjoy it. And that I would agree with.

Hi! This is what I’m trying to do with tucson.social. Wish the city would get back to me. I don’t want to own/operate Tucson.social alone perpetually. Lol.

It would allow me to expand to a lot more community services outside of social media, chat, and Meetup platforms.

There’s dozens of us! Dozens!

Don’t know why the other poster is giving you such grief there. It’s important to note that when you encrypt your root partition that you can’t view it from refind. It doesn’t have a mechanism to decrypt the contents it finds.

The way to address this is to ensure that you’re using a Unified Kernel Image. Essentially, a full image of your Linux boot image that lives on your EFI partition. Keep in mind it can’t get to your personal data until it decrypts your root disk, but at least you can get things booting.

So, you should take the time to switch to a UKI boot process.

I recommend disabling secure Boot and encryption first and Getting the UKI Boot working through refind. Then add secure boot using sbctl. Then re-encrypt your discs. Since secure boot is all set up at this point, you should be able to back your decryption with your systems TPM chip.

Here’s the page on unified kernel images.

https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Unified_kernel_image

Agreed on aperture fever. I find 10" the largest manageable size unless you get an Obsession Ultra Compact for $$$$$.

Didn’t really consider binos for OP since viewing anything more than 45 degrees up is a pain without a proper mount. A dob is easier to use near the horizon than using a bino to view straight upwards.

For 200 you could probably land yourself an old criterion telescope or used Skywatcher. The important part is the aperture. For good nebula and Galaxy viewing, you’re going to want at least 6 in of aperture. But more is better.

Definitely check Craigslist, Facebook marketplace, and cloudy nights classifieds.

Pretty sure it’s against the TOS to do that. So if found, the account is simply terminated and it ceases being valuable. That means that even if it’s sold - it’s value isn’t in the games, but your friend network - as a sort of trojan spam/burner account. Which also means that it’s not worth more than a few dollars at MOST unless you’re some big-time twitch streamer with a vast network of steam friends.

So yeah, just be aware of what you’re getting into. It’s not likely some guy who wants an instant steam library - it’s someone who wants to exploit your friends, family, and acquaintances for money via scams. Don’t be that guy.

I liked it just fine!

I know there are a lot of Asimov diehards that found it disappointing. I don’t know why. The iRobot book wasn’t even really a book, it was a collection of short stories. Not exactly an easy thing to adapt to a movie.

I think this take is starting to be a bit outdated. There have been numerous films to use Blender. The “biggest” recent one is RRR - https://www.blender.org/user-stories/visual-effects-for-the-indian-blockbuster-rrr/

Man in the High Castle is also another notable “professional” example - https://www.blender.org/user-stories/visual-effects-for-the-man-in-the-high-castle/

It’s been slow, but Blender is starting to break into the larger industry. With bigger productions tending to come from non-U.S. producers.

There is something to be said about the tooling exclusivity in U.S. studios and backroom deals. But ultimately money talks and Autodesk only has so much money to secure those rights and studios only have so much money to spend on licensing.

I’ve been following blender since 2008 - what we have now is unimaginable in comparison to then. Real commercial viability has been reached (as a tool). What stands in the way now is a combination of entrenched interests and money. Intel shows how that’s a tenuous market position at best, and actively self destructive at worst.

Ultimately I think your claim that it’s not used by real studios is patently and proveably false. But I will concede that it’s still an uphill battle and moneyed interests are almost impossible to defeat. They typically need to defeat themselves first sorta like Intel did.

I mean, regional instances don’t have to stop folks from engaging primarily with interest based communities.

Some regions will dominate certain interests for example - here in Tucson we’re consider one of the Amateur Astronomy capitals of the world. If mander.xyz were to disappear tomorrow, Tucson would make a good home for all of the fediverse’s astronomy needs even though its a region based instance.

Further, there’s nothing that states an interest-based instance needs any registration. One could imagine a world where local instances have all the users and identities, and the interest based instances simply provide communities to the larger fediverse with no users of their own.

But yeah, it’s definitely a paradigm shift that makes interest based communities a bit more difficult to find.

Oh okay! I’m sorry about the misunderstanding.

???

I don’t particularly have any issues with them.

But if a user did, they don’t have much recourse. I’m talking about that as a structural aspect. Not a moral one.

But sure if you just want to claim this puts me in the !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com community by ripping it out from any relevant context, go ahead I guess?

Hi there! Admin of Tucson.social here.

I think that the only way the fediverse can honestly handle this is through local/regional nodes not interest based global nodes.

Ideally this would manifest as some sort of non-profit entity that would work with municipalities to create community owned spaces that have paid moderation.

So then comes the problem of folks not agreeing with a local nodes moderation staff - but that’s also WHY it should be local. It’s much easier to petition and organize against someone who exists in your town than some guy across the globe who happens to own a large fediverse node.

This model just doesn’t work (IMO) if nodes can’t be accountable to a local community. If you don’t like how Mastodon, or lemmy.world are moderated you have zero recourse. For Tucson.social - citizens of Tucson can appeal to me directly, and because they are my fellow citizens I take them FAR more seriously.

Only then will people be trusting enough to allow for the key element to protecting against AI Slop. Human Indemnification Systems. Right now, if you wanted to ask the community of lemmy.world to provide proof they are human, you’d wind up with an exodus. There’s just no trust for something like that and it would be hard to acquire enough trust.

With a local node, that conversation is still difficult, but we can do things that just don’t scale with global nodes. Things like validating a person by meeting them to mark them as “indemnified” on a platform, or utilizing local political parties to validate if a given person is “real” or not using voter rolls.

But yeah, this is a bit rambly, but I’ll conclude that this is a problem that exists at the intersection between trust and scale and that I believe that local nodes are the only real solution that can handle both.

I understand the sentiment… But… This is a terribly reasoned and researched article. We only need to look at the NASA to see how this is flawed.

Blown Capacitors/Resistors, Solder failing over time and through various conditions, failing RAM/ROM/NAND chips. Just because the technology has less “moving parts” doesn’t mean its any less susceptible to environmental and age based degradation. And we only get around those challenges by necessity and really smart engineers.

The article uses an example of a 2014 Model S - but I don’t think it’s fair to conflate 2 Million Kilometers in the span of 10 years, vs the same distance in the span of the quoted 74 years. It’s just not the same. Time brings seasonal changes which happen regardless if you drive the vehicle or not. Further, in many cases, the car computers never completely turn off, meaning that these computers are running 24/7/365. Not to mention how Tesla’s in general have poor reliability as tracked by multiple third parties.

Perhaps if there was an easy-access panel that allowed replacement of 90% of the car’s electronics through standardized cards, that would go a long way to realizing a “Buy it for Life” vehicle. Assuming that we can just build 80 year, “all-condition” capacitors, resistors, and other components isn’t realistic or scalable.

Whats weird is that they seem to concede the repairability aspect at the end, without any thought whatsoever as to how that impacts reliability.

In Conclusion: A poor article, with a surface level view of reliability, using bad examples (One person’s Tesla) to prop up a narrative that EVs - as they exist - could last forever if companies wanted.