UraniumBlazer

Ok, let's see

• Fox moderator as verticalgong minister
• Killmonger as underworld minister
• Impregnator as health minister
• Hillbilly as vice president
• Very wrong theorecist as Justice Minister

Bottom text: Trump's next Reich

Is my translation correct?

It seems that LIDAR based self driving tech (the one that Waymo uses) is miles ahead than 2d camera based tech (the one that Tesla uses).

I'm really excited for this being implemented for city buses. Currently, in lower density areas, there are two choices - have smaller buses with more frequency, or have larger buses with less frequency. The problem with smaller buses is that you need more drivers. The problem with larger buses is that frequency becomes low, thus disincentivizing usage of public transit.

Self driving city buses would be really cool as driver costs would be 0. This would mean, that smaller buses/vans would be able to run at fixed routes at really high frequencies.

WOW that's fucked up.

Naah, I was referring more to the headline, as I believe there would be a positive correlation between married women and kids. Banning women to marry = less kids.

Don't they... have... a... population shortage?

I'm so confused

Wanna bet that it was the Russians?

Fuck the Indian state and its enablers.

I don't understand why the knee jerk reaction for everything is just "ban it".

You want to reduce the exposure of children to predators? Moderate the platforms. We can agree that Reddit n Lemmy's moderation is a lot better than Instagram's moderation. Why don't we start with that???

The biggest way predators do their predatoring is by sliding into ur DMs. You could restrict this by requiring approval for all such new DMs by a parent's account or something. There r just so many ways that social media can be made safer for kids.

Social media is a digital townsquare. Sure, there r some malicious actors lurking about. Does that mean that kids should just be banned from this townsquare? No. The townsquare should be made safer for kids. There must be some hand-holding for kids in the beginning so that they can learn how to make the best use of this infrastructure in the future.

Governmental overreach. Good luck trying to enforce this shit.

Social media isn't bad inherently. Addictive algorithms, violation of user privacy, etc. is bad.

Kids should be taught how to make use of social media for good. I was bullied quite a lot as a kid. Social media is what kinda brought me out of it.

Social media told 13 year old me, that it is alright to be gay. Social media is what made me interested in politics. A huge part of who I am today is because of the nice people I met online. Fuck the government for trying to take it away from others like me.

Ok, good luck on your project. We'll talk when any given peertube project (based on the donation based funding model alone) reaches break even.

I swear I've reviewed the finances about this a million times over. Funding models in their current form just don't work. Content creators getting free hosting from YouTube with huge audiences are struggling to keep themselves afloat. But whatever, good luck on your project I suppose. We really need YouTube's monopoly to end, so ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

Sure! Remember though, that you are funding this project using your own money. How much does your server cost? How much does the electricity to run your server cost? You would need Gbps speed internet. How much does that cost?

You would be funding this out of your own pocket. Thank you for doing that! Would there be a thousand more people willing to do this? What happens if you lose your job? What happens to the server?

As you can see, this is not a technological issue, but a funding one. If you can generate funding for this somehow, you have a very viable model! IF you can find the funding.

I am saying that funding this would be difficult. I see people just yapping about FOSS, but not funding it when the time comes.

Naah I thought about this before and came to the conclusion that this isn't that bright of an idea. Here's why.

Why's video hosting so expensive in the first place? Because it needs a lot of computational power, storage and bandwidth. All three things that a mobile phone does not have. If you make your client's mobile phone do this stuff, then you're going to slow down their phone, make it heat up more, make it degrade faster (because it would be drawing power from the battery) and take up a huge chunk of their bandwidth.

Think of how video calls drain battery really fast. It's just shifting the costs of hosting from the hosting side to the consumer side while making the entire operation a lot more complicated and a lot more inefficient.

I'm really skeptical of its success primarily due to the immense costs of hosting video. Peertube exists already, and isn't nearly as successful as Mastodon/Lemmy primarily due to its hosting costs.