Jayjader

joined 2 years ago
[–] Jayjader@jlai.lu 3 points 3 days ago

On a au moins la base du monde diplomatique qui leur sert à faire leur fameuse carte des médias & leurs propriétaires !

Les données sont organisées en sept tableaux :

  • personnes.tsv, medias.tsv et organisations.tsv contiennent les médias, personnes physiques ou morales actionnaires
  • personne-media.tsv, personne-organisation.tsv, organisation-organisation.tsv et organisation-media.tsv détaillent les liens capitalistiques entre ces actionnaires et médias qu'ils possèdent

Mise à jour en décembre 2024

Dans la partie "sources" du poste originel

[–] Jayjader@jlai.lu 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

10 ans trop tard, mais mieux vaut tard que jamais?

[–] Jayjader@jlai.lu 4 points 1 week ago

You buying at a grocery store is out of convenience, the alternative is learning how to hunt like a survival hunter.

At some point that was an alternative, but today the natural ecosystems have been so encroached upon by human civilization that we can't just decide to become survival hunters - we'd simply starve. Grocery stores are all you have if you're living in a high-rise apartment in most cities, for example. Most suburbs can't support enough wildlife to then be hunted for survival by the humans living there.

Vegetable gardens might be a better analogy than survival hunting. There are even some initiatives being taken to break the cycle of dependency that grocery stores encourage, which I suspect is what @subignition@fedia.io is getting at: collective effort is needed beyond just letting the techies do their thing in their own corner, otherwise we all suffer. Everyone needs to move beyond their comfort zone at some point, for some amount of time - be it the techies teaching others, or the others learning a bit more about how their tools work.

the average user wants the convenience of easy to use software, because they don’t want to learn the alternative [...] If everyone was like you, then easy to use software wouldn’t be selling so much.

I can't tell if you are simply stating how the world currently is or claiming that it is destined to always be that way, but in either case I don't see how "people prefer convenience" is a good argument against trying to help them get over that preference. I don't think convenience is nor should be the end-all-be-all of existence, in fact it can be actively detrimental to life when prioritized.

Unless I'm mistaken, the average user wanted asbestos in their walls, lead in their paint, and asked their doctor for menthol cigarettes instead of regular ones when said doctor was prescribing them for stress. The average user in the USA couldn't tell that their milk was full of pus and mixed with chalk to the point it was killing their babies, all for the convenience of still owners and milk producers. Their society had built up so much around the convenience of drinking milk in places that couldn't produce it locally, that it took an Act of Congress as well as the development of technology to safely transport milk long distances before the convenience stopped killing people.

Don't get me wrong, convenience is great when it doesn't come at the expense of our well-being - in those cases it tends to dramatically improve our well-being. I tend to agree with @subignition@fedia.io that currently the software market is overly delivering convenience to the point that it is negatively affecting our collective well-being - with regards to software, at the very least.

[–] Jayjader@jlai.lu 3 points 1 week ago

Also, wasn't Trump the reason the largest non-nuclear bomb in the USA arsenal was first used in combat? The bomb that had never been deployed in the almost 15 years since it's creation specifically because the US military thought it would create too many civilian casualties?

The same Trump that allegedly wanted to nuke hurricanes to disrupt them before they hit the US's coast?

The dude just wants to play with the shiny toys and see things go "boom". He has literally stated to his own biographer that

When I look at myself in the first grade and I look at myself now, I'm basically the same. The temperament is not that different."

(source: The Week)

I suppose it suits him just fine that Israel is now flirting with open warfare with their neighbors.

[–] Jayjader@jlai.lu 8 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I have gotten cynical to the point of assuming the "endgame" here is properly kicking off WW3, so that Trump gets an excuse to drop a nuke or two on an adversary.

"The last time we had a world war, we won it! We were the best - and we won it with our nukes, our big beautiful nukes - it's really a shame we haven't used them since, don't you think? We ended the war by dropping 2 on Japan, and now Japan is our best friend. Why don't we drop some nukes on Iran? Don't we want them to be our friend?"

[–] Jayjader@jlai.lu 5 points 4 weeks ago

I suspect there is wisdom to be learned from forest management, specifically how regular, small controlled burns are how you avoid huge, unmanageable forest fires.

[–] Jayjader@jlai.lu 3 points 1 month ago

Et sinon, amener un marteau & burin avec soi la nuit ca peut aussi être du temps a perdre mais moins que de tenter le tribunal.

Encore moins de temps a perdre, une bonbonne de peinture jaune fluo, histoire que le dos-d’âne soit visible a > 50m. Idéalement en écrivant "CE DOS-D’ÂNE EST ILLEGAL ET MEURTRIER" dessus 😈

Je pense au fameux meme du ricain qui dessinait des teubs autour des nid-de-poules dans son village pour "obliger" sa municipalité de les remplir/réparer.

[–] Jayjader@jlai.lu 1 points 2 months ago

Quelle honte, dans le pays des Lumières, de vouloir proposer ce qui de fait serait une société de caste(s).

 
[–] Jayjader@jlai.lu 4 points 4 months ago

To extend your metaphor: be the squirrel in the digital forest. Compulsively bury acorns for others to find in time of need. Forget about most of the burial locations so that new trees are always sprouting and spreading. Do not get attached to a single trunk ; you are made to dance across the canopy.

[–] Jayjader@jlai.lu 9 points 4 months ago

A second good read is her follow-up/response post: Re: Re: Bluesky and Decentralization

[–] Jayjader@jlai.lu 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I think downvote anonymity is the bigger part of the problem, not downvotes in general. Unless I'm misunderstanding, what you're proposing amounts to "if you want to downvote in a community you'll need to make an account on it's instance". This would be a nice option to have, but it should also remain an option.

In your +50/-90 example, showing at least the instance provenance for votes allows more (sub)cases. If I can see that 55 of the downvotes come from the instance hosting the community, that's potentially a very different situation than if only 5 do. Or if 70 of the downvotes come from a pair of instances that aren't the community host. The current anonymity of these downvotes flattens these nuances into the same "-40", which I agree isn't great when it can lead to deletion - but I'd argue that's also an entirely separate problem that might be better addressed from a different angle. I find that disabling downvotes from other instances entirely flattens things just as much if not more, just not in the same manner. Instead of wondering how representative a big upvote or downvote count is, I'm now wondering how representative a big upvote count is, period. That might seem like 50% less wondering but with no downvotes at all it might also only be about 50% less votes.

I'm not convinced silencing negative outside contributions won't just shift the echo-chamber-forming to one that's more based around a form of toxic positivity and/or reddit-style reposts and joke comments, either.

Revealing from which instances downvotes come from doesn't prevent opinion downvotes but it allows dulling their bite. The same is true for opinion upvotes.

From my understanding votes are more-or-less already somewhat public on lemmy between it's implementation and what federation needs to function properly. At the very least, each instance knows how many votes they're getting from the other instances. We should embrace the nuances federation brings to the problem instead of throwing them away entirely.

So much thought has been put into "how do we convey the different instances' character and their relations to each other to new (potential) users in a way that doesn't a) overload them and/or b) scare them away with content that rubs them the wrong way" in communities and posts like these, when potentially we just need to render more visible the data that is already present on the instance servers.

I'll acknowledge up-front that the "just" in the previous sentence is carrying a lot of weight; data viz is not easy on the best of days and votes have so little screen real-estate to work with. On top of that, any UI feature that can make what I'm suggesting palatable and accessible to non-power users would also need to be replicated across most popular clients. They're written in a motley assortment of programming languages and ecosystems, and range from targeting browsers to native smartphone OSes, so the development efforts would be difficult to share and carry over from one client to the next. Still, they're called votes: there's a lot of prior art in polling software and news coverage of elections from the past few years that should be publicly accessible (at least in terms of screenshots, stills, and videos of the UI, if not a working version of it to play around with).

On top of this, I don't know how much effort this would require on backend devs for lemmy (and kbin/mbin I forget which is the survivor, and piefed, and any other threadiverse instance software I'm currently unaware of). I wouldn't expect keeping track of vote provenance to prove immensely difficult, but it could cause some sort of combinatorial explosion in the overhead required by the different sorting algorithms proposed (I'm ignorant on how much they cache vs how often they're run for lemmy, for example).

I can't foretell if this would "solve" opinion downvotes on it's own, but I do think it would contribute to the necessary conditions for people to drift away from the more toxic forms of it. It could also become another option for viewing feeds on top of "subscribed"/"local"/"all" + the different vote rankings.

 
 

95,350,331 documents from at least 17 data breaches and had a total size of 30.1GB

“This database is dedicated to compiling information from multiple French-related data breaches and includes previously known and unknown leaks,” researchers said.

L'explication donnée par l'article me parait correcte, mais j'y connais rien a ce genre de fuite.

Parmis les fichiers du leak, le seul truc que je reconnais est le suivant:

ldlc.txt. Points to an alleged compromise involving LDLC, a French online electronics retailer.

LDLC pwned ? :(

 

Je lisais des fils dans !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com et suis tombé sur une n-ième discussion concernant les chars, les ours, et la dés[t]alinisation du développement du logiciel lemmy (dsl pour les jeux de mots enfantins mais c'est pas la partie importante de mon message et je ne veux surtout pas relancer de sujet à leur propos).

Non seulement des discussions assez intéressantes politiquement (et pas que sur les logiciels du fédivers), mais surtout j'y découvre qu'il y a plusieurs tentatives de fork de Lemmy en ce moment, ainsi qu'apparemment sublinks se voudrait être capable de fonctionner directement avec une ancienne db de/pour lemmy.

Le commentaire qui en parle dans la discussion : https://jlai.lu/comment/10577392

Perso, je préfère investir mes efforts sur mon projet de client activity pub multi-services^[0], donc je ne vais militer dans un sens ni l'autre. Ça me semblait juste pertinent de partager cette info au cas où ça aiderait la réflexion (si elle n'est pas déjà résolue).

[0] : pour l'instant ça sait afficher des objets AP lus sur une URL en json brut, et si toi tu lui dis qu'un objet particulier est un pouet masto il l'affiche alors un peu plus mis en page. Si un jour j'arrive a en être satisfait de sa capacité "client Lemmy/piefed/etc" je reviens volontiers en faire la promo, mais c'est pas pour demain!

 

cross-posted from: https://jlai.lu/post/10771034

n’hésitez-pas à me demander de traduire certains passages de mon post en français si besoin

Personal review:

A good recap of his previous writings and talks on the subject for the first third, but a bit long. Having paid attention to them for the past year or two, my attention started drifting a few times. I ended up being more impressed with how much he's managed to condense explaining "enshittification" from 45+ minutes down to around 15.

As soon as he starts building off of that to work towards the core of his message for this talk, I was more-or-less glued to the screen. At first because it's not exactly clear where he's going, and there are (what felt like) many specific court rulings to keep up with. Thankfully, once he has laid enough groundwork he gets straight his point. I don't want to spoil or otherwise lessen the performance he gives, so I won't directly comment on what his point is in the body of this post - I think the comments are better suited for that anyways.

I found the rest to be pretty compelling. He rides the fine line between directionless discontent and overenthusiastic activist-with-a-plan as he doubles down on his narrative by calling back to the various bits of groundwork he laid before - now that we're "in" on the idea, what felt like stumbling around in the dark turns into an illuminating path through some of the specifics of the last twenty to forty years of the dynamics of power between tech bosses and their employees. The rousing call to action was also great way to end and wrap it all up.

I've become very biased towards Cory Doctorow's ideas, in part because they line up with a lot of the impressions I have from my few years working as a dev in a big-ish multinational tech company. This talk has done nothing to diminish that bias - on the contrary.

 

cross-posted from: https://jlai.lu/post/10771035, https://jlai.lu/post/10771034

Personal review:

A good recap of his previous writings and talks on the subject for the first third, but a bit long. Having paid attention to them for the past year or two, my attention started drifting a few times. I ended up being more impressed with how much he's managed to condense explaining "enshittification" from 45+ minutes down to around 15.

As soon as he starts building off of that to work towards the core of his message for this talk, I was more-or-less glued to the screen. At first because it's not exactly clear where he's going, and there are (what felt like) many specific court rulings to keep up with. Thankfully, once he has laid enough groundwork he gets straight his point. I don't want to spoil or otherwise lessen the performance he gives, so I won't directly comment on what his point is in the body of this post - I think the comments are better suited for that anyways.

I found the rest to be pretty compelling. He rides the fine line between directionless discontent and overenthusiastic activist-with-a-plan as he doubles down on his narrative by calling back to the various bits of groundwork he laid before - now that we're "in" on the idea, what felt like stumbling around in the dark turns into an illuminating path through some of the specifics of the last twenty to forty years of the dynamics of power between tech bosses and their employees. The rousing call to action was also great way to end and wrap it all up.

I've become very biased towards Cory Doctorow's ideas, in part because they line up with a lot of the impressions I have from my few years working as a dev in a big-ish multinational tech company. This talk has done nothing to diminish that bias - on the contrary.

 

Personal review:

A good recap of his previous writings and talks on the subject for the first third, but a bit long. Having paid attention to them for the past year or two, my attention started drifting a few times. I ended up being more impressed with how much he's managed to condense explaining "enshittification" from 45+ minutes down to around 15.

As soon as he starts building off of that to work towards the core of his message for this talk, I was more-or-less glued to the screen. At first because it's not exactly clear where he's going, and there are (what felt like) many specific court rulings to keep up with. Thankfully, once he has laid enough groundwork he gets straight his point. I don't want to spoil or otherwise lessen the performance he gives, so I won't directly comment on what his point is in the body of this post - I think the comments are better suited for that anyways.

I found the rest to be pretty compelling. He rides the fine line between directionless discontent and overenthusiastic activist-with-a-plan as he doubles down on his narrative by calling back to the various bits of groundwork he laid before - now that we're "in" on the idea, what felt like stumbling around in the dark turns into an illuminating path through some of the specifics of the last twenty to forty years of the dynamics of power between tech bosses and their employees. The rousing call to action was also great way to end and wrap it all up.

I've become very biased towards Cory Doctorow's ideas, in part because they line up with a lot of the impressions I have from my few years working as a dev in a big-ish multinational tech company. This talk has done nothing to diminish that bias - on the contrary.

view more: next ›