I love the idea of taking on a monopoly, but I don’t like that, without regulation, it has a low chance of success, and the consumer gets to suffer as the monopoly fights back.

Entwistle boo.

The pricing scheme here is designed to gouge businesses for equal or more than the traditional non-cloud equivalent. Which happens to be completely unaffordable. Imagine buying a new enterprise grade server for your home setup.

You understand that global economic stability relies on people gambling their lives on a dream, right? Well, that and pure willful ignorance.

What would the journalists do? Try to explain that to people, and that nobody has figured out a way to fix it yet?

I know your joking but in case people don’t get it: rich comes from luck, not from hard work.

Don’t work any harder than you have to, thinking it helps. It doesn’t change the statistical chance of you becoming rich.

Many people will say you can help along the luck. Those people are dumb.

Resume field would get an api endpoint that only returns a json resume, and only if the request header is application/json. And the json resume would have embedded json.

I mean, yea. Happy to have AI as a player in the free market, the problem is that it requires a $0 salary so, kind of unbeatable as far as capitalism is concerned.

Why pay $1 to make $2, when you can pay $0 to make any number over zero? It scales infinitely, unlike the planets resources or human tolerance.

It does make sense. I wonder if the admins checked to see how many users (were) subscribed to nsfw? Not that a subscription equals a content consumer, but it’s a strong indicator.

Possibly. Power is just representing others via. their trust in you. Trust can be earned, purchased, or stolen.

I don’t think the blahaj admins bought their users off. I also don’t think they oppress them. I can only reasonably conclude their doing what they think is right.

If the users agree, stay on the instance, and are happy there’s not really any discussion to be had.

I like the instance and it sucks to see it defederate period. I can’t really say what reasons are right or wrong universally, except for criminal stuff. IMO.

Slaps roof: “It’s our Lemmy Certified Quality Discussion©️Guarantee!” : “You won’t always like the conversation.”

long pause

Customer: “but?”

Slapper: “But what?”

Customer: “You won’t always like the conversation, but…”

Slapper: “Oh! No, that’s it’s. That’s the guarantee.”

If the blahaj admin(s) are working in the best interests of their users, and/or moderating out criminal content then that’s just swell.

On the other hand, if they’re trying to control other people… that’s bad form.

I always cringe when I hear: “you live under my roof, you live under my rules.” This has that kind of “feel;” yea?

Not fire Chef.

Not fire Chef.

Ah yes, the “local taxi lobby.” Uber helped show a lot of us what a fucking joke that is, not just in Ottawa.

Innovation, choice, quality and freedom are the choice spices for capitalism soup. These shit-cook-legislators kept sprinkling in taint like protectionism, cronyism, extortion and corruption thinking nobody would notice. Well guess what? Now it’s just taint soup.

Why does it matter who’s serving you taint soup? The problem is there’s no other soup and they keep telling you it’s fine.

Was the OP a blahaj account, or someone from a different instance?

Ahh. I see. I took a look at the script. “Blocked Users,” is not reported by an instance, but rather It’s calculated by this script by looking at “Blocked Instances,” which is reported. How many active users each blocked instance has and then summing this together, the script shows “BU.” I was thinking it was an explicit list of users the instance blocked based on ban/block lists.

It’s a derivative, but still useful metric, I guess. BU could be high, but BI could be low and vice-versa.

This could always change at the whim of an admin as well. It’s good to have admin “teams” and even foundations, but a lot of the time there’s one person making those decisions.

Users and communities could be more portable. Admins should get to decide what is on their instance for sure, but right now there’s kind of a “lock in.” Which give admins disproportional control / responsibility. IMO.

You mean blocked instances right? AFAIK an instances “blocked users” is not published in aggregate. You’d have to comb through the modlog.

A quick, but a little dirty solution for this, would be communities having “tags” in their metadata. This wouldn’t prevent spam, or an accumulation of four trillion tags, but you could easily add “only these tags,” or “not these tags,” to any feed. User objects have metadata that is used like this (as the “bot” flag) already. I’m just familiar enough with the code to know it wouldn’t be a slam dunk, but it’s also not a breaking change or re-write!

More “portable” and secure identities would have been a good feature. The client could have handled most of the crypto required for signing and validating content. As it stands now, the instance Admin has complete control over your identity. Portable communities would follow that easily.

Most of the syncing issues are actually between the large instances or instances that having performance issues.