this.
It doesn't matter one whit about the instance, except perhaps initially. Maybe.
You choose who to read and follow and the instance doesn't matter.
I already 'follow' about 80 like-minded geeks I'm interested to read each day and that's all I can keep up with.
I never look at either the local timeline or the federated timeline: they are too much information; firehose.
edit: and those 80-odd ppl are all over the planet on various instances in various languages.
> It doesn't matter one whit about the instance, except perhaps initially. Maybe. You choose who to read and follow and the instance doesn't matter.
Not in my experience. Mastodon doesn't really have any (good) cross-instance discovery mechanisms aside from just watching the global fire-hose, so your initial experience is formed by the other users on your instance. And the experience varies wildly from "This instance is very quiet" to "This instance is full of furries".
People can learn about service providers after they've been using the service for a while, when they understand how it works and what value it provides; it is then a good time to decide whether they want to migrate to a more stable or close provider.
The sign-up form during the first experience with the service is not the point to educate the newcomer about those issues, beyond maybe a friendly reminder of who is the one providing service to them at that point.
The sign-up process should be streamlined to make sure users arrive to a server that provides a good experience based on their interest; not on educating them about the technicalities of the service.
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." - Buckminster Fuller
Capitalism has to be replaced. Trying to change it is futile.
We've been trying to tweak capitalism for a couple of hundred years and we're still stuck in a global board game of Monopoly.
There is only one outcome in such a game and everyone knows it: one winner takes all and the rest ...
First of all, the centralization of credit, which is the source of all of the problems cited in the video, was one of the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto. Central banks are the antithesis of a free market.
Second, capitalism can be replaced in a free society if a superior model is introduced. No one is stopping people from starting up worker cooperatives, communes or non-profit organizations.
By all means try to replace enterprises that are motivated by remuneration, but don't do it by violating people's right to freely contract. Do it by making a better model that people freely choose to switch to.
>No one is stopping people from starting up worker cooperatives, communes or non-profit organizations.
Funny how HN comments are so full of complaints about practices that inhibit businesses our system is actually designed for. What makes coops and communes so easy?
Communist Manifesto isn’t a work anyone seriously defends. Marx didn’t even defend it. It’s a history scrap; significant by contextual events. If you read Marx’s seminal work, you’d not honestly raise such a moot point.
>>Funny how HN comments are so full of complaints about practices that inhibit businesses our system is actually designed for. What makes coops and communes so easy?
Insofar as there are obstacles to starting businesses, communes, etc, they are a result of interventions by the state that inhibit the free market, like permitting and licensing requirements, so the solution there is to go more toward a free market, not less.
>>Marx didn’t even defend it.
That's extremely disingenuous. He authored it. He titled it 'The Communist Manifesto', thus placing it at the center of his political platform.
It's not like capitalism was just put here by someone, it's how free humans will interact by default. The idea that it can be "replaced" is one of the most asinine that I've ever heard. Even in places that have tried to practice something different capitalism has still existed in the way of black markets and has always emerged as king.
Trade and markets might be, absent of all outside interference (I don't think this is even possible), but capitalism has definitions that go well beyond that.
I just tested this with zimwiki, works perfectly, as it's all plain text files.
http://zim-wiki.org/
I didn't try it with encryption as zim wouldn't understand it.
Another way to take advantage of ctrl+r is to add a comment at the end of the line when you have very similar commands. e.g.
ssh fred@127.0.0.1 #servername
ffmpeg -some -long -incantation #vid2mp3
It's better than an alias or function in your rc file as you can easily edit to change some args
Right. Not so much. That was exactly the last thing to happen as it turned out. He and everyone else in the effort worked on the tools and apps.
By contrast:
> I’m doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won’t be big and
professional like gnu)
> and things seem to work. This implies that I’ll get something practical within a few months
Anyhow, torvalds had already put in the work on the kernel and wanted feedback.
Torvalds had a kernel and no tools. RMS had tools but no kernel, so the inevitable happened and they were wed. Torvalds even chose the RMS version of a marriage license.
The marriage is fruitful, but RMS is frigid and bitchy the whole time, solely over the name of the child -- even though the child has matured and gone on to a brilliant career they can both be proud of.
This would also be a good time to note that Torvalds is not the one who chose the name of Linux -- usenet chose it.
I have great respect for RMS and admire his courage (and self-discipline) very much, but I really wish he'd let that thing about the kid's name go. Just let it go already Richard.
Well no, Torvalds had a kernel and all the tools GNU had created.
And Linux is (entirely legitimately) the name of the kernel - the dispute[1] is over the name of systems running a bunch of GNU code on top of a Linux kernel.
[1]: Elsewhere it has been contended that RMS has pushed for the name to apply to the kernel itself as well. I don't believe that was ever the case (though will certainly update my beliefs if presented with evidence) but am far more confident that it is not his current position.
How about coding sites such that folks don't need to 'add to cart' in order to find out what they'd actually be paying if they were to purchase? That's most often why I 'abandon' carts. They make me start a cart in order to see the bottom line.
I've run a printing press in my mis-spent youth. And repaired photo-copiers.
One technique that is often taught is to turn the page upside-down -- in order that you not be distracted by the content.
You are, at that point, and your job, is to be only interested in the copy/print quality. Registration, blur etc. Not the content. That's the editor's job. Not yours.
The same may be said in this instance for the layout. That's your focus, or should be. That's the beauty of Lorem Ipsum: most people don't know Latin. If you want a change, make it Klingon, but retain the original use. That is, to check the page. Don't make it distracting by being readable or in any way comprehensible.
From the content side, having worked for a student newspaper and having been bitten by accidentally running a bunch of pictures headlined with "Inspiring 'Red Sox Win' Photo Spread Head", something we learned was to make filler text look as obtrusive as possible, so you remember it's there and fix it before you go to press. Text with lots of "@@s" and characters with deep descenders were both helpful.
That said, I'm a big fan of The Onion's "Passersby were amazed by the unusually large amounts of blood."
> One technique that is often taught is to turn the page upside-down -- in order that you not be distracted by the content.
My reading ability is about the same either way up. A while ago we started painting instructions to "Look left" / "Look right" on UK streets according to the direction of the traffic, on the assumption that people only read the ones that appear the right way up from where they're standing. This is why I keep nearly getting run over.
There's two schools of thought. The "loren ipsum" school says you should strip out meaningful content, to focus on design. The 37 signals school says to use good defaults (instructions, example text). Either way, it shouldn't be distracting in a way which doesn't add any value.
The vast majority of people have not done the experiments themselves. We actually do 'take it on faith' about a lot of things, like the earth is spherical, the earth travels around the sun, how gravity behaves etc. etc.
We also think people from former times were idiots for believing the Sun went around the Earth -- even though both would appear identical to casual observation.
We take it on faith from others in an appeal to authority. I, personally, have done very few basic experiments and my numbers differed wildly from the expected number (I suck at experiments).
Science, natural philosophy, has completely divorced itself from the whole of philosophy and any other kind of thinking.
Science is able to describe my friend's physical attributes in some detail, but science can not describe our friendship -- the faith and trust that goes into it doesn't fall within the purview of science, but it's nevertheless a reality that we all deal with.
Equations are simply abstractions to model the real, physical world. When our mental shorthand substitutes those models for the real thing in our thinking we get into problems.
> We also think people from former times were idiots for believing the Sun went around the Earth
Erm, I don't think they were "idiots". And I'd say you're pretty safe to totally dismiss the opinion of somebody that does. Our understanding of the world, and the mental tools that we've developed to aid our understanding have developed in step. To call our forebears idiots for a misapprehension is to fail to comprehend the continuum of our advancement.
> We take it on faith from others in an appeal to authority.
You're certainly free to "take it on faith", but I wouldn't recommend it. Learn about science as much as you're able, and if possible try and understand things from first principles. You might find it rewarding to leave your "faith" at the door and get even a glimmer of the self-supporting system of tested knowledge that science provides.
> Equations are simply abstractions to model the real, physical world.
Equations and models maybe be abstractions but there's nothing simple about it, and they are capable representing profound truths related to the nature of the physical world. Those truths let us directly affect the real world in practical ways.
I'm sorry but I find your statements a little wishy-washy!
