NoraCodes

People are allowed to write fiction. The page is clearly labelled as such (the fourth word on the page is "fiction"!) and qntm is a relatively well-known fiction author. If anything, posting it to HN is the issue.

It's worse for competition, yeah. If I want to start a music streaming service, I'm evaluated not on the quality of my service but the fact that I don't have a deal in place with these carriers.

If it's technically feasible not to limit the bandwidth for some services, it's technically feasible to at least reduce the throttling for everyone.

The traditional Linux-bashing post, which is effectively (to my mind) countered by the traditional response, which is that another indie dev found [1] that most of these issues were not Linux-specific. That is to say, Linux users don't report more bugs because there are a lot of problems running the game specifically on Linux, but because they're accustomed to reporting bugs instead of just ignoring them.

1: https://www.neowin.net/news/linux-gamers-are-way-better-at-f...

Yes, correct.

Given that people are already firing real human workers to replace them with worse but cheaper LLMs, I'd argue that we're not talking about a competing technology, but that the competition is simply not firing your workforce.

And, as an obligate customer of many large companies, you should be in favor of that as well. Most companies already automate, poorly, a great deal of customer service work; let us hope they do not force us to interact with these deeply useless things as well.

Sounds like a good thing. Those companies will either pay their workers what they're worth, or hurt for talent.

What a weirdly incoherent headline. Why not, "Smoking is Dying Out, Except in Germany", which is an actual sentence that conveys the same information in fewer words?

I dunno. I've met most of my friends, including a lot of people in my local area, via the Fediverse, long before these recent waves of migration. Numbers are a lot less important than real connection.

The short term solution is making A/C very accessible and reliable. The long term solution is no longer putting huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. It is imperative to do both, no matter the (e: monetary) expense.

> Dismissal of these thoughts may be the safest course of action, lest one finds themselves either burdened or enlightened by further contemplation on the subjects at hand.

Setting yourself up to reject any criticism as a symptom of the phenomenon you're arguing for is a rather disingenuous rhetorical move.

In particular, while there's a conversation to be had about "slacktivism" being an outlet for emotions that might better motivate real activism, your suggestion that climate change is "uncontrollable" is doomerism, pure and simple.

If we emit less greenhouse gasses, things will not get as bad. It is, of course, more complex than that, but that's a pretty damn good first approximation. So let's do something!

Comments here are wild. There is a very serious problem; the solutions to the problem are known; powerful people are preventing those solutions from being implemented; people are angry about that; anger motivates those people to do progressively more socially unacceptable things to make the people in power change.

We can and should argue about specific remedies, exactly who is responsible, what tactics are most effective, and so forth. We should not be arguing about whether or not it's reasonable to be angry!

That you dislike it when people use incorrect but clear language does not mean that it invalidates their point.

> I expect better from a publication as “woke” as Scientific American.

This strikes me as a prime example of "woke" having lost all meaning. What would it mean here? Having an orientation towards truth? Giving a shit about minorities?

It mentions it in one sentence and then caveats it with saying oh but they're crazy and irritating. It then moves on to talk more about how we're all doomed. It's just unnecessarily negative.

As with all (and especially self-identified) doomer literature, this piece stops just before the important realization: you can't do it yourself, but you can do it with your community.

Our lives are going to get worse. Many people will die. If we form sustainable local communities, and build political coalitions to lessen the damage going forward, fewer of us will die, and our lives will get "less worse".

It's not over until it's over.

I dunno, the ancients did an awful lot of sitting around. At least the rich ones.

In my opinion, this misses the point that cheap, year-round, exciting, and well-covered tournament play is one of the best advertisements for Magic that Wizards could possibly invest in. That was the whole reason the Pro Tour existed to begin with: Homelands was bad, and everyone knew it was bad, but when there were people playing New York Type 2 with a minimum of 5 Homelands cards in their decks, it got people excited about it.

Per MaRo: "The whole point of the Pro Tour is that it's a marketing vehicle. We want to be aspirational, but we were also trying to get them to focus on what the latest sets were going to be." [1]

With Secret Lair, unbelievably expensive Commander Masters packs (yes, even accounting for inflation), and the whole 001/001 Ring situation, Wizards is raking in the dough. They should subsidize these events extremely heavily.

1: https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/feature/oral-history-first...

I wonder if there might be some structural problems in American labor policy that incentivize this kind of behavior

But... you have. A small one, probably not one that'll have much of an impact on either of you, but it is a social interaction.

I am a DAU of the Fediverse because it's an easy way to see what my friends are up to and tell them what I'm up to. I also use it to follow "celebrities", such as they are, in the Rust world.

By contrast, I have a Twitter account, but I only log in once every few weeks to check for messages.

I think there is a meaningful distinction between corporate social media and volunteer-run platforms like the Fediverse.

That is not the same thing as systematically eradicating the institutions of power that allowed the atrocity to happen.

I didn't say that. The question was, what's the difference between the relationships between the Nazis and the contemporary nation of Germany, and the Americans who committed crimes of imperialism in the 20th century and the contemporary nation of America. That's the difference.

The Nazi government was overthrown and its ideology outlawed. Not so with the United States.

No. As I said, I'm not advocating for plain text only emails, just simple ones.

Ah. I think the difference is that when I send emails, I do so to communicate information, rather than to elicit people to buy a product.

Fair enough. I fully support hobbyists making email clients do fun tricks.

I don't understand the insistence on building "beautiful" emails. I'm not the kind of person to insist on text-only e-mail, but I do think it's ridiculous to spend lots of time and money making e-mails that look like fully-fledged Web documents.

Either your message does have some useful information for the reader, in which case say that and then get out of my way, or it doesn't, in which case you're a spammer. There is no third option.

> Compare ActivityPub to email. You don't get Google saying "we are going to block everyone with a Hotmail account from sending emails to Gmail users or receiving emails from Gmail users, because there are a couple of Hotmail users who have opinions we find distasteful". That would be clearly ridiculous.

Indeed it would! It's also a terrible analogy for the behavior of the vast majority of admins. Given that, I think you are either very poorly informed or arguing in bad faith.

I think you have a very strange definition of censorship. Generally, people use "censorship" to refer to an organization with some kind of power relationship to a speaker preventing speech from being disseminated. Fediblock is not an organization, and the admins who use it do so specifically because they don't have power over the person speaking.

It's the equivalent of sending an e-mail to my neighborhood listserv saying "the guy who lives down the street is a bit of a dick, let's not invite him to the chili cook-off next time."

A bunch of people deciding not to be your friend isn't censorship.