brisk

joined 2 years ago
[–] brisk@aussie.zone 2 points 4 days ago

Even Arch has an interactive installer now, and Endeavour is meant to be Arch with a bulletproof installer as well.

[–] brisk@aussie.zone 3 points 4 days ago

For dual booting I strongly recommend having Windows and Linux on separate drives altogether.

[–] brisk@aussie.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago

Just to be clear before I respond to the rest of this comment, my position is that Peertube solves the sustainability problem and in no way am I suggesting Peertube will replace YouTube

I do not expect the vast majority of channels to survive the end of YouTube, as is normal for any paradigm shift.

P2P is completely achievable using NAT Hole Punching. I have no clarity on if Peertube is doing this but since there's already a trusted server involved it would be silly not to.

In a hypothetical, unlikely future where YouTube dies and people generally move to Peertube, I expect the majority of content creators to pay small fees to have instances host their videos. I expect small, free but restricted instances will continue to be the home for amateur videographers as they are today. The more technical folk will likely self host, and groups of like minded creators will pool efforts to run group specialist instances (not unlike Nebula).

Frankly the most likely scenario is YouTube dies and everyone starts posting videos to Instagram or Tiktok or something equivalently anti user.

[–] brisk@aussie.zone 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Content creators. It's hard to host everyone's videos, and it benefits monopolists to imply that doing so is necessary, as it prevents new entrants. It's not nearly as hard to host your own server (or pay for it to be hosted). It becomes harder when you suddenly become popular, a situation which Peertube explicitly compensates for by sharing the distribution effort between viewers, which scales with popularity.

Signal makes it's own bed like YouTube by being a single centralised server for everyone. Nobody ever asks "who pays for the servers" when it comes to Matrix or XMPP

[–] brisk@aussie.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Not precisely what you're after but https://sepiasearch.org/

[–] brisk@aussie.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

Peertube has already delivered the sustainable model: creators host their own videos and viewers assist distribution.

[–] brisk@aussie.zone 2 points 1 month ago

This would fit in perfectly in Dr Suess' Hop on pop

[–] brisk@aussie.zone 2 points 1 month ago

how did we get to a point where every creator is limited to one box?

US Antitrust has been asleep for decades, and as soon as it opened one bleary eye the oligarchs took over the government.

[–] brisk@aussie.zone 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You can also do that in Tubular, if you prefer a FOSS option

[–] brisk@aussie.zone 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You don't happen to know what whereabouts in legislation that's detailed, do you?

[–] brisk@aussie.zone 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Every character there is working class, so I'm imagining in this case "regardless of class" is implicitly "regardless of perceived class"

[–] brisk@aussie.zone 6 points 4 months ago

Among other things it lets you define the return type in terms of the arguments to the function.

 

Highlights:

Krishnan told Ars that "Meta is trying to have it both ways, but its assertion that Unfollow Everything 2.0 would violate its terms effectively concedes that Zuckerman faces what the company says he does not—a real threat of legal action."

For users wanting to take a break from endless scrolling, it could potentially meaningfully impact mental health—eliminating temptation to scroll content they did not choose to see, while allowing them to remain connected to their networks and still able to visit individual pages to access content they want to see.

According to Meta, its terms of use prohibit automated access to users' personal information not just by third parties but by individual users, as a means of protecting user privacy. Meta urged the court to reject Zuckerman's claim that Meta's terms violate California privacy laws by making it hard for users to control their data. Instead, Meta said the court should agree with a prior court that "rejected the argument that California law 'espous[es] a principle of user control of data sufficient to invalidate' Facebook’s prohibition on automated access."

Much more in article

view more: next ›