Jayjader

joined 1 year ago
[–] Jayjader@jlai.lu 9 points 1 week ago

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

[–] Jayjader@jlai.lu 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks 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.

[–] Jayjader@jlai.lu 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

From what I understand its origin in street racing was because japanese drivers (specifically? might have been Asian more generally) were souping up cars to look pretty but still not run great. I'm hazy on the details and my google-fu is failing me - I wish I had a more precise answer but overall I recall being bummed out at how even the origins of the term weren't as clean as I had hoped.

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

Slight question/nitpick over the prequels' CGI; is the opening space battle [over Coruscant] of Revenge of the Sith somehow not up to par with its contemporaries? That sequence still holds up in terms of visual spectacle that takes advantage of its medium (3d rendering in this case vs practical effects) to do specific shots and set pieces.

Or am I just ignorant of how much the original trilogy pushed things?

 
[–] Jayjader@jlai.lu 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Le terme anglais est shifting baseline (syndrome), que Wikipedia traduit apparemment par amnésie écologique.

[–] Jayjader@jlai.lu 6 points 1 month ago

Je soupçonne aussi que cette brigade était autant un coup de comm' française qu'un réel effort d'aide et de collaboration, vu tous ces commentaires de militaires ukrainiens qui déplorent le manque d'équipements etc dans des unités/brigades existantes.

Encore un coup de l'opportunisme (et de l'irresponsabilité) de Macron pour moi...

Bon, si la France n'est pas capable de fournir davantage de matériel français/spécialisé, ça me paraît assez censé de vouloir regrouper ceux qu'on forme dessus en une unité de combat. Pour autant, ça n'a pas l'air d'être le mouv' à faire vis-à-vis de l'état actuel des forces armées de l'Ukraine ???

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

I suspect the foreign sanctions will indirectly prevent a healthy video games ecosystem from forming in Russia, on top of everything you've already cited. With these sanctions, there is even less incentive than before for Russia to crack down on (software) piracy (of foreign games). So their game devs are competing with essentially free and high quality games made by everything from indie devs to huge studios.

[–] Jayjader@jlai.lu 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I was going to try it out, and then the website asked me for my email :(

I don't want a feed aggregator that has its own account, I want one that just lets me use my existing network/feed-specific accounts.

I imagine (/hope) that the email-for-signup is only while the software is in alpha/beta/unreleased, to help them get user feedback.

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

Good luck and don't forget to bring heat pipes!

(More realistically, given you posted this 11 hours ago; hope y'all weren't stranded!)

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

Effectivement. Le plus récent, c'est dans mon autre poste.

Pour ma part, c'est la première fois que j'apprends l'info. J'ai partagé l'article ici après ne l'avoir vu qu'uniquement retransmis par un bot qui miroir reddit sur le fedivers.

 

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 ? :(

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

Vu que ça risque de ne pas être que cette espèce d'oiseaux qui sera en voie de disparition bientôt, peut-être qu'on pourra répéter la technique ?

 

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 ›