The secret to commenting fearlessly is to not read your replies. Most reply-thread conversations are people aggressively talking to themselves to feel like winners. The alternative to engaging like that is to embrace the tendency to self-talk, turn a sensitive thread into an essay prompt for yourself, and don't look back, unless you really feel like getting in an argument that day.

Sometimes you miss good faith engagement that way, but if it's important to keep that, you can add another point of contact.

What always helped centralized social was an environment of rapid growth. For the majority of people there wasn't a "before" to compare to whatever they signed up to, so a play like the one Reddit made, which isn't about the quality of the content but "whatever gets people in the door", worked - focusing all your energy on hypergrowth was the Web 2.0 strategy. But my own "before" goes back to browsing Usenet over a dial-up shell account(terminal access only). The technology used then was primarily characterized by being efficient to store and process, which led to a federated model that shared text threads.

The reason people switched from Usenet to early web forums was also a combination of not having a "before", plus some new conveniences. Usenet moderation tools were very limited, ensuring that spam and derangement were common. Because the design was made just for text, you didn't have image-focused content, but you also didn't experience the things images get moderated for now - you could post a UU-encoded file that contained an image, or a link to an image, but you couldn't shove it in people's face. And tree quoting replies was normalized, if rather disorganized - long-running threads often got "forked".

The model of web forums that became most popular - flat topic threads, more images, centralized moderation - caused as many issues as it solved. Flat threading with no post ranking makes people reply "first" at the top of the thread, images create a whole attack surface, and centralized mods have more power to trip on. But they could provide a better experience along the narrow set of things they wanted the forum to be about, and that made all the difference. That's how the centralized model works. When I think of places like Something Awful or Newgrounds in their original heyday - it's really gatekeepy stuff. There were tastemakers and you followed their lead or else.

Reddit started with a lot of link aggregation, which was also Digg's thing - that model "pushes" more content than a regular forum, so it helps build broad-audience engagement. But Reddit added more Usenet-like elements, and those gradually took over a lot of the niches as more people started using Reddit to ask questions and make statements addressing a specific community.

Something that I think defines the federated space is that there is less "push". The power is more distributed, fewer gates to keep. Reddit represented those values for a while, and now it obviously doesn't, so the users who were there for that are going to drift this way very quickly.

Part of what propelled Digg to stardom was the desire for a central "town square" that didn't yet exist in the 2000's, Web-centric internet. (never mind that Usenet existed - it didn't have a lot of the conveniences of web forums and had gotten overrun with spam, so it just wasn't part of the discussion). There were a few larger, topic-centric sites like Slashdot, Something Awful, Fark, Newgrounds, etc. These older sites had various limits on user submissions and barriers to entry, in part because it was out of their scope to try to do more than that.

Digg hit on the combination of user-submitted content, simple voting interface, and secret algorithm that has defined most of Web 2.0 - but spam, moderation and power users were always an issue, and the best answer anyone seems to have had to it is "decentralize more", which Reddit did some of by splitting things out into topical feeds again, but unifying the login and access to all of them and letting users self-appoint as moderators - in essence, give power users their own fiefdoms to keep the peace. Twitter likewise absorbed some Digg users because it relied a lot on user self-moderation of their feed. Other platforms went down the path of having the algorithm do more of the moderation and becoming more TV-like, which is more profitable but volatile since that makes the platform blameworthy for everything that slips through.

So, what I feel has happened since is mostly intensification brought on by being for-profit and taking investment capital, unlike some of those older sites which are still around and kicking. It's hard to resist changing your business model towards profit maximization when you've taken a lot of investment. But then, the useful service that Reddit was providing when it launched is a commodity now, and with federated social media, the power dynamics are even more diffused.

But every time this happens, there are people who want to stay behind, and that's because power dynamics aren't uniformly agreed upon. Some people don't want it to be objectively challenging to hold power, they just want a game they can win.

Arch is always "latest and greatest" for every package, including the kernel. It lets you tinker, and it's always up to date. However, a rolling release introduces more ways to break your system - things start conflicting under the hood in ways that you weren't aware of, configurations that worked don't any longer, etc.

This is in contrast to everything built on Debian, which Mint is one example of - Mint adds a bunch of conveniences on top, but the underlying "how it all fits together" is still Debian. What Debian does is to set a target for stable releases and ship a complete set of known-stable packages. This makes it great for set and forget uses, servers that you want to just work and such. And it was very important back in the 90's when it was hard to get Internet connectivity. But it also means that it stays behind the curve with application software releases, by periods of months to a year+. And the original workaround to that is "just add this other package repository" which, like Arch, can eventually break your system by accident.

But neither disadvantage is as much of a problem now as it used to be. More of the software is relatively stable, and the stuff you need to have the absolute latest for, you can often find as a flatpak, snap, or appimage - formats that are more self-contained and don't rely on the dependencies that you have installed, just "download and run."

Most popular distros now are Arch or Debian flavored - same system, different veneer. Debian itself has become a better option for desktop in recent years just because of improvements to the installer.

I've been using Solus 4.4 lately, which has its own rolling-release package system. Less software, but the experience is tightly designed for desktop, and doesn't push me to open terminals to do things like the more classical Unix designs that guide Arch and Debian. The problem both of those face as desktops is that they assume up-front that you may only have a terminal, so the "correct way" of doing everything tends to start and end with the terminal, and the desktop is kind of glued on and works for some things but not others.

Not dead, just sleeping. It's a tougher, higher interest-rate market which cuts out a lot of the gambling behavior. I remain invested but my principle has shifted away from the financial and trad-economic terms to this:

Blockchains are valuable where they secure valuable information. Therefore, if a blockchain adds more valuable information, it becomes more valuable.

And that's it. You don't have to introduce markets and trading to make the point, but it positions those elements in a supporting role, and gets at one of the most pressing issues of today: where should our sources of truth online start? Blockchains can't solve the problems of false sensation, reasoning or belief, but they fill in certain technical gaps where we currently rely on handing over custody to someone's database and hoping nothing happens or they're too big to fail. It's just a matter of aligning the applications towards the role of public good, and the air is clear for that right now.

I've had some thoughts on, essentially, doing more of what historically worked; a mix of "archival quality materials" and "incentives for enthusiasts". If we only focus on accumulating data like IA does, it is valuable, but we soak up a lot of spam in the process, and that creates some overwhelming costs.

The materials aspect generally means pushing for lower fidelity, uncomplicated formats, but this runs up against what I call the "terrarium problem": to preserve a precious rare flower exactly as is, you can't just take a picture, you have to package up the entire jungle. Like, we have emulators for old computing platforms, and they work, but someone has to maintain them, and if you wanted to write something new for those platforms, you are most likely dealing with a "rest of the software ecosystem" that is decades out of date. So I believe there's an element to that of encoding valuable information in such a way that it can be meaningful without requiring the jungle - e.g. viewing text outside of its original presentation. That tracks with humanity's oldest stories and how they contain some facts that survived generations of retellings.

The incentives part is tricky. I am crypto and NFT adjacent, and use this identity to participate in that unabashedly. But my view on what it's good for has shifted from the market framing towards examination of historical art markets, curation and communal memory. Having a story be retold is our primary way of preserving it - and putting information on-chain(like, actually on-chain. The state of the art in this can secure a few megabytes) creates a long-term incentive for the chain to "retell its stories" as a way of justifying its valuation. It's the same reason as why museums are more than "boring old stuff".

When you go to a museum you're experiencing a combination of incentives: the circumstances that built the collection, the business behind exhibiting it to the public, and the careers of the staff and curators. A blockchain's data is a huge collection - essentially a museum in the making, with the market element as a social construct that incentivizes preservation. So I believe archival is a thing blockchains could be very good at, given the right framing. If you like something and want it to stay around, that's a medium that will be happy to take payment to do so.

I have no plans to support p92 precisely because it's going to "push" users together as a commodity. What Meta has jurisdiction over is not its communities but rows of data - in the same way that Reddit's admins have conflicted with its mods, it is inherently not organized in such a way that it can properly represent any specific community or their actions.

So the cost-benefit from the side of extant fedi is very poor: it won't operate in a standard way, because it can't, and the quality of each additional user won't be particularly worth the pain - most of them will just be confused by being presented with a new space, and if the nature of it is hidden from them it will become an endless misunderstanding.

If a community using a siloed platform wants to federate, that should be a self-determined thing and they should front the effort to remain on a similar footing to other federated communities. The idea that either side here inherently wants to connect and just "needs a helping hand" is just wrong.

My principle of "blockchain's fundamental value" is simply this: A blockchain that secures valuable information is valuable.

To break that down further:

• "Valuable information" isn't data - it's something that you can interpret, that has meaning and power to affect your actions. So, price speculation taking place on a chain isn't that valuable in a broad, utilitarian sense, but something like encyclopedic knowledge, historical records, and the like might be. The sense of "this is real" vs "this is Monopoly money" is related to the information quality.
• "Secures" means that we have some idea of where the information came from, who can access it, and whether it's been altered or tampered. Most blockchains follow the Bitcoin model and are fully public ledgers, storing everything - and just within that model(leaving aside Monero etc.) there are positive applications, but "automatically secure" is all dependent on what application you're aiming for.

You don't need to include tokens, trading, finance, or the specific method of security, to arrive at this idea of what a blockchain does, but having them involved addresses - though maybe without concretely solving - the question of paying upkeep costs, a problem that has always dogged open, distributed projects in the past. If the whole chain becomes more valuable because one person contributes something to it, then you have a positive feedback loop in which a culture of remixing and tipping is good. It tends to get undercut by "what if I made scam tokens and bribed an exchange to list them", the maxi- "we will rule the world" cultures of Bitcoin and Ethereum, or the cynical "VC-backed corporate blockchains", but the public alt chains that are a bit out of the spotlight with longer histories, stuff like Tezos and NEM/Symbol, tend to have a more visible sense of purpose in this direction - they need to make a myth about themselves, and the myth turns into information by chance and persistence.

What tends to break people's brains - both the maxis, and people who are rabidly anti-crypto - is that securing on-chain value in this way also isn't a case of "public" vs "private" goods. It's more akin to "commons" vs "enclosed" spaces, which is an older notion that hasn't been felt in our political lives in centuries, because the partnership of nation-states and capital has been so strong as a societal coordinating force - the state says where the capital should go, the people that follow that lead and build out an empire get rewarded. The commons is, in essence, the voice in the back of your mind asking, "Why are you in the rat race? Do you really need an empire?" And this technology is stating that, clearly and patiently: making a common space better is another way to live.

And so there is a huge amount of spam around "ownership", but ownership itself isn't really a factor. That's just another kind of information that the technology is geared towards storing. The social contract is more along the lines that if you are doing good for a chain and taking few risks, a modest, livable amount of credit is likely to flow to you in time. Everyone making "plays" and getting burned is trying to gamble with it, or to advance empire-building goals in a basically hostile environment that will patch you out of the flow of information.

Coming soon: rebranding /r/piracy to "pirate cosplay"

It will never show an consistent number. The way Activitypub operates is "you see what you're subscribed to", and that occurs in a technical/political sense of "these instances have agreed to federate", and in many cases they don't federate everything that happens. So if someone on instance A upvotes something posted on instance B, but instance C is not subscribed to instance A, A and B will see the upvote, C won't.

You don't have to give up on your clout-chasing dreams, but the numbers won't tell the whole story.

Eugen is not the person I would trust for good judgment on this because his agenda has always been user growth-centric, so a Fediverse that resembles Facebook would just be a "yay" moment for him - either way he can still end up with a career by leveraging his role with ActivityPub.

That said, I don't believe EEE works here, because AP evolved in an environment that already had to compete like-for-like with corporate options. You'll still log in for the rest of the fediverse if it brings you better content than Threads...

...and it has an edge on that, because these spaces are not designed around herding around industrial quantities of users. They have a natural size at which moderators shrug and close the gates if a big instance is too troublesome, because it hurts the quality of the experience for their own users. This peeves instance admins who want the power fantasy of "owning" a lot of low-quality users, but it also basically guarantees defederation with corporate social, because it's never been able to handle its own moderation problem other than in a "pass-the-buck" way.

The thing about larger-scale architecture is that you can be correct in any specific sense that it's more than you need, but when you actually try to make the thing across a development team, you end up there because the code reflects the organization, and having it broken up like that lets you more easily rewrite your previous decisions.

At the small scale this occurs when you notice that the way in which you have to approach a feature is linguistically different - it needs conversion to a substantially different data structure, or an interface that compiles imperative commands from a definition. The whole idea of the database having a general purpose structure and its own query language emerges from that - it lets you defer the question of exactly how you want to use the data. The more configuration you add, the more of those layers you need. When you start supporting enterprise-grade flexibility it gets out of control and you end up with a configuration language that resembles a general purpose programming environment, but worse.

Casey Muratori talks about this kind of thing in some depth.

In the end, the point of the code is to help you "arrive in the future" in some sense - it's instrumental, the point of automating it is to improve the quality of your result by some metric(e.g. fewer errors). For a lot of computations, that means you should just use a spreadsheet - it aids the data entry task, it automates enough of the detail that you can get things done, but it also gets out of the way instead of turning into a professionalized project.

My favorite example of "weird camera" is Journey to the Planets. It's an Atari 800 game with graphics that are more 2600-esque. It's mostly side view, but the proportions are abstract, like a child's drawing: the spaceship is about 1/3rd the size of the player sprite, but then as you lift off it shows zoomed out terrain and the sprite is the same size. The game is based around solving adventure game puzzles with objects that are mostly just glowing rectangles, but your way of interacting with the puzzles involves a lot of shooting. Even though there's so little detail, every room feels "hand-crafted".

I'm pretty sure the game permanently altered my sense of aesthetics.

Follow admins and moderators on other instances, that starts federation.

With respect to how it works in the microblogging corner of Fedi, the tendency is to be actively collaborative, and aggregate some moderation resources, sometimes through backchannels, other times through a tag like #FediBlock - all of which have political implications that have been years-long meta discussions. The emphasis, at least among instances that want to moderate heavily, is on allowing users to feel undisturbed in their own space and not be challenged on literally everything they say, but to still expand that space where it makes sense.

I'm not sure the exact same dynamic will take place over here. The existence of many distinct spaces on the same instance mitigates a major initial problem Mastodon faced in its early waves: when you literally put everyone leaving Twitter on the same public timeline, old grudges spark up and they start campaigns to harass each other off the platform. That's how it came to pass that Mastodon ended up with a ton of user privacy features, and over years, instances warring over ideology and trying to colonize each other, which of course ends in mutual blocking.

In our case I think there's a good chance for small aggregator instances that just "do one thing well" to thrive and see a lot of external traffic, while not having to moderate their entire comments section, since you can opt to not federate that - not your site, not your concern.

Post five things "kbean" makes you think of

Jellybean
Jelly
Jealous
Jam
Rock jam

I occasionally use this style to work out problems with an element of distributed computation, and when I went to review the literature to do that again, this article came up. Often I end up with the final code being implemented conventionally, but it's a helpful middle step to apply FBP concepts to work through "where" things are.

Pinball Deluxe Reloaded for action
Patience Revisited for solitaire

And that's about it.

What's out there currently is whatever is on midi.org - which I believe has what you want, the Clip File specification, which is accompanied by a not-yet-ready Container File specification(est release in 2024).

That said, even implementing MIDI 1 for sequencing is a huge step in terms of possibilities; the cost of a dynamic soundtrack of the iMUSE/Monkey Island 2 sort, where you can make the entire soundtrack transition smoothly between pre-written clips, is mostly borne in the asset creation process. Either you have to program generative sequences, or you're looking at a composer spending hundreds of hours making transition cues.

What MIDI 2 adds for this task is mostly on the end of recording expression in higher resolution, and that means you are making a higher-fidelity sequencer asset, and programming higher-fidelity synth patches. So the asset cost may go up even further to actually make use of that stuff.

If I were exploring that space again, which I've done in the past, I would aim for one of:

1. Sequenced sample playback with a focus on mixing and arranging longer samples and multisampled instruments generatively - a mostly-standard approach
2. Discarding the MIDI interface and writing to my own synth engine directly, using a format like ABC to compose.
3. Applying generative AI to create a "part player" that embellishes a MIDI sequence(this has some demonstrations but isn't doable in real-time...yet)

I believe there is a healthy relationship between instances and magazines, actually: the way in which topical forums tend to be "hive-mindy" fits well with Fediverse instance culture. The difference is that instead of Reddit-scaling leading in the direction of "locking down" topical discussion to be a bureaucratic game of dancing around every rule, because all users are homogenous - just a name, a score, and a post history - you can have "this board is primarily about this" but then allow in a dose of chaos, affording some privilege to the instance users who already have a set of norms and values in mind and pushing federated comments out of view as needed, where you know the userbases are destined to get into unproductive fights.

This also combats common influencer strategies applying bots and sockpuppeting, because you've already built in the premise of an elite space.

There's work needed on the moderation technology of #threadiverse software to achieve this kind of vision, but it's something that will definitely be learned as we go along.

Reputation will vary by which instance you're on because it's just a calculation of actions people have made, and those counts vary based on who subscribed to whom and when. If you're on instance B and instance A and C are talking to you, but defederated from each other, you could be +100 when looking from A and -100 when looking from C. So the score will be increasingly meaningless-looking the more you are federated.

I've become comfortable with saying, "it's not worth it being normal", and thus am ok with the normie tag, even if I don't want to turn it into a slur. Normal is a form of social construct that tends to be imposed on us: it's when the teacher enters the classroom and the class sits down and shuts up, not because they explicitly agreed to, but because it was normalized. There isn't anything in particular suggesting that normal = good.

And that does have an elitist ring to it, which does upset the goal of equitable outcomes in some ways. There are certain philosophies in which a premise of elitism is assumed, as in, some people just won't be able to access the necessary understanding to participate, so it's better to have a gate than to let anyone wander through. This is the view of Leo Strauss and followers - for a really detailed explanation try Arthur Melzer's book Philosophy Between the Lines.

Even if you don't read that book(it's a good book), I would make the case in this way: it's the difference between online gaming that uses automatic matchmaking, versus a martial arts dojo. Online gaming and toxicity correlate because there is no lower bar on who can play, so all sessions are pushed to the lowest common denominator of cheating, griefing, etc. But someone who participates in martial arts like a gamer gets kicked out of the gym, if the standards are high: an instructor who values students does not let them attempt to eyegouge each other or slam their head on the mat.

Occasionally someone like that will sign up for a tournament, commit an illegal move in the first round, and get themselves disqualified. But they can leave their opponent seriously injured in the process, and maybe end a career. So the standards tend to condition a degree of gatekeeping, respect for others, etc. Not every gym does well at this, and some styles like boxing have a norm of "hard sparring" where full-contact is trained and damage is expected. But predominantly the focus is on getting the techniques and training without destroying yourself or others.

And I do liken the idea of complete access to, essentially, allowing dirty street brawls to be the only kind of sparring, the only way in which you can interact online with strangers.

Martial artists also sometimes use the normie term. They will say it outright: you have to be a weirdo to spend so much time getting beat up and choked out. We can have a gate and still be tough on ourselves to do better.

Kbin is kinda a lot tbh, it's got a bit of a space shuttle control panel thing where the different sections of the ui are modal and you have to remember to configure each one so that you can see e.g. "newest microblogs posted by subscribers to mechanicalpencils". I figured it out after a few hours of stumbling around seeing content and not being sure how I got there.

There have been a bunch of changes that make them a little more relevant and engaging, though not to the point where they're everywhere:

• Routing spire(thing that lets you put a tiny spawn pad anywhere you want) now has a 500m range limit, and the spawn is hidden on the minimap so enemies have to either hunt around for it or take down the spire
• Vehicle bases(one-point bases out in open fields) have been turned into silos that automatically generate cortium and change structure ownership when the base is captured
• Base balancing has changed to make them more fun to fight at. Old module system is gone, new module system adds busywork to slot modules into structures. Enemy infantry can attack by overloading the modules and placing cortium bombs in open slots. Automatic defenses are gone, but there are powerful modules like the fortress shield shown that protect the center of the base.

Now the play for a squad that wants to build is to drive into enemy territory, quickbuild some stuff, and then chain pull 12 Lightnings to murder everything nearby, including the other bases. It's the closest the game has gotten to representing control over an area in a literal sense.

Drawing gets a lot easier if you approach it as a muscle-memory skill like calisthenics or juggling - if you can write letters neatly, you can also learn to draw shapes you've practiced. The early exercises in books like Keys to Drawing (Dodson) or The Natural Way to Draw (Nicolaides) introduce ways to practice those skills, and then the rest is "find subjects you want to draw", which can be as simple as watching a video, pausing it, and quickly using that for the exercise. Do that for a few minutes a day for a few weeks and drawing skills will magically emerge.

There are tons of "how to draw tutorials" that don't explain any of this, speak about it conceptually, and tell you to go draw a thousand cubes, which will make you better at drawing...cubes. (There is some point to that kind of technical skill, but it's not the thing to invest in if you just want to use images to tell a story)

I think it's reasonable for some instances, where there's good alignment. There was a thread I replied in a few days back around how/if TTRPG creators(who are mostly small enthusiasts themselves) could advertise in related magazines, and legitimizing that business wouldn't really pose a conflict for the hobby - that's how it was built in the first place! It's just a matter of finding a place for it and defining the technical solutions.

As a general "let in all the advertisers and promise riches for someone" measure, it does cause known problems. There is some freedom to figure out what works in a specific case here, it's not defined top-down since it isn't centralized.

Neuro Sama - Take on Me

I subscribe to the Tony Seba / RethinkX view that we are in a decade of multiple major technological disruptions - energy, agriculture, information, transportation. He's lectured on the topic several times: https://youtu.be/z7vhMcKvHo8

Even if he is wrong about the details, it's great hopium.

If you look at the links by each post, you'll notice that some will reference a URL that goes off of your local instance. In Lemmy these are icons, in kbin it appears from the "more" link. Sometimes it's unclear who/where I'm interacting with and examining the URL helps me get some idea of it. In federated social media different instances often develop a different subculture, but since they can access each other you have more dimensions of interaction and how to behave.

That is a tendency with long-running MMOs. Planetside has gone the same way and until the day the subreddit closed for the protest, there were zombie players in every thread gaslighting the community about a "dead game" that is still very alive. They can't move on, there's nothing like it.

Mastodon's export portability mostly focuses on the local social-graph aspects(follows, blocks, etc.) and while it has an archive function, people frequently lament losing their old posts and that graph relationship when they move.

Identity attestment is solvable in a legible fashion with any external mechanism that links back to report "yes, account at xyz.social is real", and this is already being done by some Mastodon users - it could be through a corporate web site, a self-hosted server or something going across a distributed system(IPFS, Tor, blockchains...) There are many ways to describe identity beyond that, though, and for example, provide a kind of landing page service like linktree to ease browsing different facets of identity or describe "following" in more than local terms.

I would consider these all high-effort problems to work on since a lot of it has to do with interfaces, UX and privacy tradeoffs. If we aim to archive everything then we have to make an omniscient distributed system, which besides presenting a scaling issue, conflicts with privacy and control over one's data - so that is probably not the goal. But asking everyone to just make a lot of backups, republish stuff by hand, and set up their own identity service is not right either.

The most universal mammal behavior I know of is not visual, it's the "hi I'm here" bark or grunt. It's something that was pointed out in a wildlife tour video where they visited mountain gorillas: if you don't make any noise and their first indication is visual, you may have predatory intentions, but if you add a little "mm" noise, you're just passing through and they can relax.

It works for many kinds of creatures, humans included.

Some arcade experiences worth trying:

• Final Fight
• Osman
• Street Fighter II(really, any version. World Warrior is the one that blew minds at release)
• Puzzle Bobble
• Magical Drop III
• Tank Force (most obscure one on the list)
• Outrun (the first one, but Outrunners is cool too)
• Metal Slug (any of them, really)
• Dodonpachi

Meta attempts to federate and every user is immediately swarmed with bots that tell them to stop using Meta, a baby site for babies, forcing Meta to defederate.