It might reduce the problem but I don't think that'll solve it, as in some situations instances will still defed each other. For example, where an admin says "users from that instance break my rules, I don't want to deal with it, defed time".
It's interesting how, by hosting your own instance, your view over Lemmy changes. I hope that self-hosters like you become more common.
I would rewrite the second sentence into “As such, content it doesn’t like is not possible to be hosted on their single, general-purpose instance.”
Or rather, "content not found in their single instance is not present in Reddit as a whole at all".
That's the point here - it's true for Reddit but false for Lemmy, as content available in one instance doesn't need to be hosted yet again in another.
Instance creation and management does not require coding skills. It’s a very different skill set, one of system administration and web hosting.
I phrased it poorly. What I tried to convey is that easier instance creation and management should be a priority for coders, so other people have an easier time hosting/managing their Lemmy instances.
That [interface devs should expect users to have 2+ accounts] is just a ugly workaround, I hope we can come up with something better.
Ugly workaround or not, I believe that this would be still sensible given the current state of Lemmy. Because when people want content from non-federated instances, here are their current solutions:
- Register on both, and keep two separated and partially overlapping feeds. It's a bother, and eventually they will ditch the smaller feed.
- Look for an instance that happens to federate with both, and register there. That may or may not federate with a fourth instance with desirable content.
- Register on one and give up the other. Usually the one getting the short end of the stick is single-purpose, smaller, or more careful on whom they federate with.
So the current state of the things actively encourages you to hop into big, general-purpose instances. That is bad for the federation, and it aggravates the "three groups to rule you, three sets of rules to follow" problem.
Do you happen to have an alternative for this idea? Preferably, one that would work with the Lemmyverse now?
Both are great steps in the right direction, I believe.
And eventually I think that "A federates with B" should boil down to "you can post in A using a B account". With the combined feed being handled by the front-end, and all activity in B being hosted by B itself (not just images).
I get that the author is trying to make the reader look at both sides, and I praise him for that. But the picture is not so pretty.
You know that paradox of tolerance that Popper talked about? The real deal, not the one that you'd see in Reddit, or in that misleading comic? That applies to the Roman religion vs. Christianity: the Roman religion was abler* than Christianity to tolerate faith differences, as exemplified by the existence of a temple for Isis (an Egyptian goddess) in the city of Rome. And it was tolerant towards Christianity at the start, even if mildly mocking it with things like this:
(That's from ~200 CE. It shows how clueless some Romans were towards Christianity - "they worship donkeys lol".)
And the whole process was a lot like the social version of lead acetate. Christianity offers you some sweet bullshit, like "your relative is not-so-dead, as long as he was a Christian he's happy in the sky; you should accept our bullshit too if you want to see him". But it's still a slow-acting poison.
In 1749, Pope Benedict XIV consecrated the Colosseum, ancient Rome’s most recognisable monument, as a shrine to Christian martyrs. An inscription made clear its role in Christian history: ‘The Flavian amphitheatre, famous for its triumphs and spectacles, dedicated to the gods of the pagans in their impious cult, redeemed by the blood of the martyrs from foul superstition.’
It's kind of hilarious a Christian priest calling someone else's beliefs "foul superstition".
*I hope that I don't need to explain that a comparative does not convey an absolute value. I'm saying "abler", not "completely able" - there were still disputes and dead people. Still a far cry from Christianity's "convert him into a human=Christian or kill/enslave it like a filthy animal".
As once a wise man said, "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't after you." Oh wait that was Kurt Cobain, not a wise man.
I was already growing certain that we, the sensible majority, owe plenty of so-called crackpots a few apologies.
Oh no, you don't. Just like you shouldn't apologise for not using a broken clock, even if right twice a day.
Because being right is not enough - you need to be consistently right, and that's only going to happen if you keep yourself rational, unlike those crackpots. The "Mormon elder" was probably talking about chips as a sign of the beast, and believed in bullshit like Christ coming back; and the "ex-Army ranger" likely saw civilian society with a military "hunt or be hunted" mindset. (Perhaps the gf and actor deserve the apologies?)
What matters here are who, why, and how. And I think that most people in Lemmy know those three.
I like it in small amounts in sushi, plus in a few other dishes (like my "undead raising" lamen. It gets wasabi, black pepper, red pepper and ginger. If whatever you have ends killing you, don't worry - the mix will make your body move again!)
Maybe that's why I remember the first time that I had wasabi. Oh wait, it's because my mouth was on fire.
Jokes aside, I'm a tiny bit sceptic on the claim due to the funding. Good news for sushi enjoyers if true, though.
IANAL but here's some potentially useful trivia: in Brazil this clause would be the same as used toilet paper, given that you cannot force someone to renounce the defence of their rights ahead potential future harm. In fact I predict that most governments have similar rules, if anyone wants to check it out this is called pactum de non petendo, or roughly "non-seeking pact".
[advertisement] !linguistics@lemmy.ml welcomes this sort of question [advertisement]
That said, look at Latin:
- dexter - right side, but also: favourable, fitting, proper (cf Spanish diestro)
- sinister - left side, but also: adverse, hostile, bad (cf Spanish siniestro)
The "privileges" that you see in derecho and right are an extension of what Latin already associated with dexter - things that are proper to do or to get. For example if I got a right to freedom, that means that it's fitting for me to get freedom, you know?
Based on that odds are that Spanish simply inherited the association, and kept it as such even after borrowing izquierdo from Basque and shifting directus→derecho from "straight" to "right". While English borrowed it, either from Latin or some Gallo-Romance language.
And overall you'll see a fair bit of that in the Western European languages, regardless of phylogenetic association, since languages clustered near each other (i.e. a Sprachbund) will often borrow concepts and associations from either each other or from a common source.
Also, note that right "as side" and "as privilege" are not homonyms. Those aren't different words from different sources, it's the same word with two different meanings, this is called polysemy. The same applies to derecho.
With considerably larger carbon footprint and water consumption than doing it the right way.
A more accurate equivalence would be "Content not found in the lemmy.ml instance might be found elsewhere in Lemmy." I'm talking about the federation vs. the lack of.
I did not claim (or even imply) that "Reddit represents the whole internet". And I am not "giving them special treatment to exclude content without criticism". It is just that this content exclusion and the criticism are not relevant in the context of this discussion.
I heavily encourage you to re-read the title of the post (just the title is enough), for context, and contrast it with your own comment. Do it. Please.