volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@constantine If you watched how he handled developing Mastodon and dealing with honest disagreements about the user interface, there's nothing surprising here.

The guy always had the attitude that his personal opinions were the one true opinions, and anyone with different personal opinions didn't know anything about the world.

He had an attitude that he was going to shape society because he knew best.

@manton often things like this are due to practical limitation and not philosophical disagreement.

The company might very well be serious about more open APIs, but unfortunately they have to gatekeep because the APIs are hitting their systems, and they have to manage that load on their infrastructure.

@manton The thing that I see people missing so often is not about what AI can do for animators, but rather what it can do for people who aren't animators.

I'm not an animator, but thanks to AI, AI allows me to do more art, helping augment my skill set where it has holes.

I think it kind of misses the mark to ask an animator. It's everyone else that benefits from this.

@Hex It's funny that first you go back to a mere transcript from generations ago to talk about what's happening today, and then you miss the key part and the transcript that you highlighted that talks about "they" providing care, not we provide care, emphasizing that the insurance company does not provide care.

And all that to build up this abstraction with hand waving toward models, not care, that all concludes something about incentives that are themselves not something that would block care.

Don't you see how weak your case is? Every link along the chain that arrives at your sensational story is critically flawed

And sadly enough, promotion of that nonsense is getting people killed when they believe it.

@violetmadder

@enmodo citation to them telling you that?

@georgelakoff

@enmodo I mean they do, if you bother to listen.

But then it kind of confirms their opinion that you don't bother to listen.

@georgelakoff

@notjustbikes seems perfectly reasonable to me.

This is their experience that they are crafting. Why in the world should you be able to intrude like that into their experience?

This is about respecting users' abilities to make of the service what they want.

And by the same token you have every right craft your experience by blocking such people, or you should in a functional system. The UI should not force them on you, but you should not be able to force their UI to exclude you in a list like this.

Empowering of users goes both ways.

@Hex

Oh no, I know quite a few personally. Real flesh and blood humans who are sadly misinformed about how the world works.

@violetmadder

@violetmadder

Oh you were so close.

Insurance companies get in the way? No. That's not how that works. That's not what insurance is or what it does.

If a healthcare worker wants to provide care, they should go for it. The insurance company isn't going to jump in the way of their scalpel to stop them.

You are absolutely correct that insurance companies don't provide healthcare. Unfortunately, so so many people think they do. So congratulations for not falling into that bit of misinformation.

But then you had to swerve and say insurance companies just get in the way, which, no. They don't do that either.

Insurance companies provide risk management which has only indirect application to healthcare, it neither provides healthcare nor blocks healthcare.

They just aren't part of that either way unless people insist on them being, which is their option.

@Hex

@WeirdWriter well, there is the privacy issue.

Even though the guarantee is limited, the walled garden of Facebook can do much more to assure privacy of posts made to a private group on that platform than this platform can.

That's going to be a big deal to many.

@muiren what?

That's simply not true, and the continued success of appealing to very active civil rights law debunks that pretty sensational claim about the state of law.

What you're saying about the laws being overturned or mute is easily debunked by pointing out those laws being applied everywhere from prosecutions through, well, hell the high profile transgender case before the SCOTUS just recently was based on civil rights law! Pretty powerful for a mute law.

You shouldn't surrender, but you should realize that it sounds like you're being goaded into a fight against a strawman.

@violetmadder everyone knows?

I come across SO MANY people every day that believe the opposite, that this guy was doling out healthcare only to some people, which is why he deserved to die.

Sounds like maybe you're shielded from an all-too-common sentiment out there today, held by people who don't know how health insurance works.

@Hex

@pureacetone oh, no. People saw exactly who Harris was and rejected her, no need for leaking compromising materials.

Democrats nominated a rubbish candidate and so they lost.

There's no need to go into any deep conspiracy theories. She was simply not a good candidate.

@Fedi_Champ I just think it's funny that this is effectively an ad for Mastodon.

That I'm seeing on Mastodon.

That's saying Mastodon is great because there aren't ads.

Like this one.

@_elena

@dougiec3 what?

McConnell wasn't dictator of the Senate. He didn't get to appoint judges himself. That's not how the US government works.

The Senate Majority Leader answers to the entire chamber, following their lead, or they will override him if he defies them.

There's so much mythologizing out there about McConnell and he spent years or decades enjoying the benefits from it.

@muiren well right, because for better or worse in the US system the federal courts are expected to offer a large degree of deference to state law.

Those against the policy have to reach a high bar of showing that the policy is in actual violation of federal law. If they don't reach that bar, the SCOTUS has no authority to override the wants of the communities that passed the policies.

@pianoplant well one correction: it's not that every new client needs an initial peer, but that it needs to contact ANY initial peer.

Decentralization comes at a price. It has overhead and complexity. BUT, it also has some benefits that may or may not outweigh the costs for a particular application.

In your case, libp2p might be better than your signaling server if we worry that your server might go down. It might be better than your TURN server provider with global relays if we worry that the provider might close shop.

libp2p provides for higher levels of decentralization and less reliance on different potential points o failure.

But again, for your particular circumstance the efficiency tradeoff might simply not be worth it.

@possiblylinux127

@manton it may feel that way to you, but it might feel completely different to someone else. And in fact that's often the case.

That's why we need to be more concrete than just talking about how one person feels, because often enough that will be a setup to later feeling betrayed when someone else's feelings lead to them doing something unexpected.

When it comes to privacy in particular, we shouldn't go with feelings, we need to spell out the rules. Otherwise, you'll have people being surprised when what they felt was private ended up not being private.

@Cosmic okay and now you've gone back to talking about different things.

Control over capital doesn't have to be interpersonal. It's entirely possible to be a capitalist without any sort of interpersonal control being involved.

@MelMScow Well it's because children often fall into false understandings because they don't have the background to see that the world is more complicated than what they're being told.

It's easy to understand that the world is flat. It's a little more complicated if you start hearing about the long history of evidence saying otherwise.