CoderKat

I totally agree that most servers work best as monoliths. Though at the same time, every now and then there's a case that really needed a microservice and you'll regret not having started that way, cause migrating a monolith that was never designed to be anything but a monolith can be really hard.

I have one of those. A server that is so large, complicated, and contributed to by so many different teams that it takes a lot of extra work to safely release and debug issues. Honestly, the monolithic structure does still make it easier to understand as a whole. It's not like splitting the server up would make understanding the end-to-end experience any easier (it would definitely become more complicated). But releasing such big servers with so many changes is harder, especially since users don't care about your architecture. They want it to work and they want 100% uptime. A bigger server means more to verify correctness before you can release it and when something is incorrect, you might be blocked on some other team fixing it.

Replace the Lemmy logo with the Twitter logo (they're not using it anymore).

It's crazy how difficult the migration to IPv6 has been. How many years has it been?

Yeah, that's an interesting thing with Apple's delay in fully switching to USB C. Now they have to and it's gonna hurt their recent (and today) customers. They should have switched ages ago. The writing was on the wall for a few years at least.

It was especially weird cause they even did use USB C for some things. I have a MacBook for work and it uses USB C. Why the heck didn't they use it for everything??

Because using random tiny servers is worse in other ways. With all due respect, nobody knows you and they don't know how committed you are or how much time you have. When your server gets DDoSed or hits a bug causing data loss, what will you do? Do you have the technological know-how to recover and quickly? If your server suddenly grew and it became more expensive to run, how does anyone know if you will keep paying the bills? If Lemmy has a bad zero day, will you upgrade quickly?

There's no need to answer these questions. I'm not actually asking you personally. But these are the kinds of questions that users have to worry about from random, small, unproven instances.

(Also, Lemmy does not favour small instances because the "all" feed, searching, and going to new communities are all better the more diverse users you have.)

I don't understand the appeal of no downvotes. Do you really think it's a good thing that trolls, bigots, dangerously wrong answers, general assholes, spam, etc can't be downvoted? I won't pretend downvotes aren't misused sometimes, but their existence is critical for quality control.

Edit: wait, I just saw you post in another thread as an "enlightened centrist", so I guess that explains it.

Even if she didn't have a pass or was the person who didn't pay last time (the driver was mistaken), they never should have closed the door while a person was in them.

Even if the door had managed to detect she was still in the way, the door closing on her could have injured her. And there's surely always something that could get stuck in the door without the sensor detecting it. If not a walking stick like this case, then a thin piece of clothing.

That's the part that horrified me the most. An hour?! That's an eternity. And somehow nobody noticed her despite the bus being in service? I kinda hope she was at least noticed quickly and the delay was something like first responders not being sure how best to remove her, because the alternative of being active dragged for that long with nobody noticing is even worse (as if it wasn't bad enough).

While criminal investigation does take time, yes, that doesn't stop them from arresting people ahead of time if there's even a moderate amount of evidence. I mean, that's never stopped police from arresting "suspicious" black people (eg, someone who simply happened to be black in an area where a crime was allegedly committed by another black person; even if they look nothing alike). Police consistently treat themselves with kid gloves while treating people of colour as hyper dangerous and must be immediately arrested (or shot).

In particular, women are more likely to be viewed as "bitchy", "bossy", etc for doing the exact same thing that a man could do without being considered as such.

So it's not just women speaking up, but also that there's a gender imbalance in how that speaking up can be viewed.

It's bizarre to me how many people assume that disabilities must be visible. And not just visible, but that it has to be glaringly visible.

You'd think that it'd be well known that visibilities might not be obvious, but nope.

I think the big deciding factor is how they're approaching the questions and what the questions are. Like, if someone is "just asking questions" where the questions just so happen to be a common bad faith talking point, yeah, I'm gonna assume they're also acting in bad faith.

Eg, leading questions are a particularly common example here. The amount of lean towards their already-decided viewpoint can vary. They might word their question to be convinced away from their viewpoint as the default ("why isn't the moon landing fake?"), or maybe they'll provide a statement that obviously gives more weight to their side ("the government is so untrustworthy, so how can we trust the moon landing was real?").

But often, they even do word the questions in a perfectly valid way, because they're not trying to get an answer. They're not gonna be convinced and they're trying to get an answer. What they want to do is make someone else mistake being stumped for "this person might be right". Eg, if someone asks you "is the moon landing real?" and you don't actually know how to prove that it's real, that can make you think that perhaps it wasn't real. After all, you can't explain how it is. But that's a fallacy. You not being able to explain it has nothing to do with whether or not it's real. Asking questions is cheap and easy. It takes no time investment compared to answering or understanding an answer. That makes it effective for planting seeds of doubt. And of course, people should think critically, but many folks aren't going to or aren't don't have the time. So they'll retain this low effort seed of doubt and that's it.

Plus of course, searching for these questions, especially leading ones, can get you to fall into conspiracy theory or alt right echo chambers, which will have the leading question included in multiple times and technically is a better match from a pure SEO point of view. Search engines do try and train themselves against the common leading questions, but they often have to do that explicitly. This is actually an area where search engines like DuckDuckGo do worse at. You're more likely to have a leading question in the top results because, again, it really is the most accurate match for that question. Should search engines direct you to the correct results or should they direct you to the results that are most accurate for what you searched for? Nobody really agrees and it'll be criticized either way (personally, I think that correctness is far more important because otherwise the search engines propagates misinformation).