A cop out or a coping mechanism. Employers steal so much from employees: time, wages, sense of purpose, sometimes even health. And most of us don’t have good ways to stop them (because socienty). So stealing a bit back might actually help feeling less hopeless.
Yes, but those minor traces are easy enough to remove, especially if you don’t care about being “ceritified” by Google (i.e. are not planning to run the Google services).
I mean if the fork fixes it and the original doesn’t and enough of lemmy defederates with the remaining kbin servers, then they will have to reconsider switching or falling into irrelevancy.
I don’t know the details of this specific project, but assuming that it’s really like many other projects basically a one-person-show at the moment there’s IMO several possible scenarios:
All of these scenarios have happened to various projects at various times for various reasons, so it’s really hard to tell which one it is.
Of course there’s also the chance that despite not having much time and not finding/adding co-devs the main dev finds just enough time to fix this issue and the project continues to limp along. That would basically just postpone the other three options IMO, since this is unlikely to remain the only major issue. Problems tend to happen with software.
Edit: oh, and I forgot that it can also be a mixture of both of those: a fork exists, but the original project also continues and both just live on next to each other with slightly different goals/communities behind them. That’s not even necessarily a bad thing.
As a kbin user myself I don’t think that’s a good solution to the issue. If one vehicle on the road is splashing all the others with manure then the solution isn’t just for everyone to get into that one vehicle …
Have they solved this specific issue yet? Because I don’t see it mentioned in either the PRs nor the issues.
What I find interesting that everyone just seems to argue that moderation actions should be federated out when the author claims that that’s already how it “should” be (i.e. that’s already the intent but it’s not working). I never wrote code for either software and haven’t even run my own instance or I’d try to reproduce the issue, because I suspect it isn’t hard to pinpoint the problem if the fundamental code is already there.
I think you’re underestimating how much work a proper fork of a (at least semi-popular) OSS product is. You need multiple devs with active time commitment to even have a chance of doing better than the original.
IMO no, the solution isn’t to create a fork, but to find more “core-developers” to join in kbin to increase the bus factor. That’s not easy either (and needs cooperation by the current dev(s)), but it’s significantly easier than bootstrapping a whole fork.
Apparently the problem of moderation not being properly federated out is discussed in this issue, but I see no PR for it. The last comment also suggests that it’s not just a missing feature, but that it “should” be working but for some reason isn’t. I’m sure if someone is interested in setting up a few kbin & lemmy test instances and reproduce this that would vastly simplify finding a solution.
I admit that this is a much higher number than I expected.
But there’s nuance there. First, look at the date. This is about a poll in July 2014, this is very explicitly NOT about the latest, massive push by Israel.
Second, there’s fluctuation in the support based on what exactly is going on (and of course based on what Hamas has done recently).
Third, the poll is only among Jewish Isrealis (which are the majority, but you’re still missing about a quarter of all Isrealis in this).
Last but not least: this is a monthly poll by some think tank. I don’t know anything about this specific think tank, but I’m cautious taking single polling by one organisation which may or may not have biases or an agenda as the only source of truth. Even just changes in phrasing can massively influence the results.
What is right is to keep in mind that “those people” that keep the war running are not all the people that live in that area. I suspect the majority of the population don’t actively wish for a full-out war (even though there might be some or even many that support the underlying goal).
Wars are often (always? maybe, I’m not a historian to be able to judge that) started and perpetuated by small powerful (and/or ruthless) groups within the areas/nations.
Yes, this particular conflict is very old and very, very messy and I can’t even imagine an answer to what the least bad resolution of it would be. But keep in mind that most people that suffer under it probably don’t want it.
What it’s “really” about is something that future historians can try to figure out, but in situ it’s almost impossible to tell.
We can list all kinds of factors that came together when the conflict started or which factors are around while the conflict keeps going for a long time. What it’s “about”? That kind of answer only really exists in games like Civilization where the answer is “because a player wanted X” or “the PC faction AI decided that the value of war exceeded the cost” … the real world doesn’t have as neat an answer.
Beware those who are sure about the “real reason”: they are either ignorant of the complexities of societies and wars or they have an agenda.
And even those future historians won’t be able to pinpoint a single reason for all of this (or most other wars), because it’s almost always multiple factors acting together.
Imagine for a second a war that looks like it’s “clearly about the aggressor getting land/resources”: that might be the main reason, but maybe historical and religious factors made the war easier to “get going” for those who don’t actually care about that (or the other way around: someone powerful want’s to wage a religious war, but it’s easier to convince the military to fight for the resources …).
Not to diminish what Valve has achieved there (it’s an amazing PC/console hybrid, love mine).
But a smooth experience without any hitches is much easier to achieve when your hardware variation basically boils down to “how big is the SSD”. The fact that all Steamdecks run the same hardware helps keep things simple.
I guess that’s also the reason why they are not (yet?) pushing the new SteamOS as a general-purpose distribution for everyone to use. Doing that would/will require much more manpower.
Not OP, but as someone using Ubuntu LTS releases on several systems, I can answer my reason: Having the latest & greatest release of all software available is neat, but sometimes the stability of knowing “nothing on my system changes in any significant way until I ask it to upgrade to the next LTS” is just more valuable.
My primary example is my work laptop: I use a fairly fixed set of tools and for the few places where I need up-to-date ones I can install them manually (they are often proprietary and/or not-quite established tools that aren’t available in most distros anyway).
A similar situation exists on my primary homelab server: it’s running Debian because all the “services” are running in docker containers anyway, so the primary job of the OS is to do its job and stay out of my way. Upgrading various system components at essentially random times runs counter to that goal.
I don’t know why you brought hate into this, for I don’t hate in this regard.
For in fact we are nothing but animals that taught themselves pattern matching and now attempt to impose our belief in that pattern on the world.
Yes, that is exactly my point: there is no “inherent” value in any of this. Without some value system of some kind, there’s no way to know if a given situation or behaviour is good or bad.
And what I’m trying to say is that pure science (as in the ideas behind the scientific method) do not and can not give you that value system. They are as far from having “values” as is possible.
No one has any basis for anything they belief outside of their own belief. That is the point.
Agreed.
Some people just decide to call their own belief “religion” and others don’t.
So telling someone “your made up beliefs are less worthy of consideration than my made up beliefs” doesn’t really have a strong place to stand on.
However, if the argument is “your made up beliefs have effects that go against my made up beliefs” then that might be an argument, but we have to be aware that at the end of the day we’re all dealing with made up beliefs.
You have a very poor understanding of what science is. Of course it does care, because those two things are different, and the purpose of science is to collect all information there is, discern everything, catalogue all differences of all things.
If all there is a lifeless ball in space, what would science “care”? There would be no one to do science and “science” as a concept can’t care.
But the fact you did so isn’t - unless you suffer from a mental illness, you were bound to choose something. That’s simply how your brain evolved.
And now we’re slowly getting to the crux of the matter: just as our brain evolved to produce morality of some kind, it also evolved to make up stories (grand and small) to try to explain the world.
Some of those “stories” eventually formed into what we now call the scientific method (i.e. try to make sure your stories are verifyable and falsifiable and produce “facts”.
Some of those stories were used as a social tool to develop some shared morality, to agree on which acts were good and which ones aren’t.
And some of the latter category turned into religion.
Because “sanity” is a measure of how one’s brain behaves as compared to the collective of humankind - how “average” your brain is. Because morality is baked into humanity, it’s sane to make a choice regarding, say, murder being wrong or not. Believing in flying unicorn robots that sing heavy metal, on the other hand, isn’t.
Can you seriously look at human history and say with a straight face that religion (and made up stories) aren’t just as “baked into” the human brain as morality is?
It’s one thing to argue that a neutral, as-objective-as-possible brain should disregard religion (and I pretty much agree with that), but it’s an entirely different thing to argue that “humans believing in religion is abnormal” in a historic scale … that’s just being blind to the facts.
And their belief in a benevolent sky daddy also can’t be falsified or proven.
Fallacy: Non Sequitur. Give me a description of a god, any god, and I’ll disprove them. No god can be described and exist, and a god which can’t be described might as well not exist.
Last Thursdayism or the five-minute hypothesis is one great example. They don’t usually mention a god in the common phrasing, but it’s easy to rephrase it to include one: “There is a god that created the universe exactly 5 minutes ago with all the signs and properties that make it look like it’s a lot longer. That god created you and all your memories as well as all the uncountable cosmic radiation rays that have yet to hit earth and everything else as well. After that creation that god stopped interacting with the universe.”. Go ahead and disprove it.
I’m an agnostic atheist myself, but I really don’t understand the obsession of some people with “disproving god”.
If there was any kind of real scientific proof of the non-existence of god, don’t you think that several Nobel prices would have been given out for that by now?
Most current religions have developed to a state where the existence of their god is basically un-falsifiable, because if you can ever prove any specific thing about them wrong, then they can always just use the “gods ways are inscrutable” escape hatch.
That makes any god effectively un-falsifiable. And any theory that can’t be falsified is irrelevant to the scientific method.
And what exactly makes them “not provable”?
And how do You answer questions that relate to them?
you can’t do so with pure science, so you need to pick some other system to consider them.
And some people pick ficticious stories about a benevolent sky daddy.
I pick some ficticious idea of human life ha in inherent value.
What basis do I have to judge one of those better than the other? only my own ficticious idea can give me that basis.
Not all “gods” thought history were all powerful, some were very limited in their powers. not all “gods” were abrahameic.
But let’s pretend that a good has to be all-powerful.
Then let’s posit that there is a god that has created all life on earth by making sure that he preconditions for life on earth were just right and then leaned back and just wachted.
That is powerful enough, right? and while I don’t believe that this (or any other) god exists, there is no logical inconsistency here.
Let me guess. By your definition only definitions that match your initial statements could possibly be definitions of god?
You’re “no true scotsman”-ing this …
Let’s retry: by which reason does any definition of good need to be logically inconsistent?
I was answering under the assumption/the context of of “Amazon wants to release an Android-based OS that doesn’t contact any of Googles services”.
So, when I said “easy enough to remove” that was relative to releasing any commercial OS based on AOSP, as in: this will be one of the smallest tasks involved in this whole venture.
They will need an (at least semi-automated) way to keep up with changes from upstream and still apply their own code-changes on top of that anyway and once that is set up, a small set of 10-ish 3-line patches is not a lot of effort. For an individual getting started and trying to keep that all up to do date individually it’s a bit more of an effort, granted.
The list you linked is very interesting, but I suspect that much of that isn’t in AOSP, my suspicion is that at most the things up to and excluding the Updater even exist in AOSP.