Asklemmy

43750 readers

1243 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Is Lemmy still growing at a good rate? (beehaw.org)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

33 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I saw some stats on this months ago, especially after the initial explosion. I’m curious if the growth is still continuing at a good pace and also how everyone feels about the growth/activity within their communities.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Good to see you're still around!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah I even have... plans.

I've got some circuit boards for a particle spectrometer off at the factory. When they come in, it will probably be the first nuclear technology integration with Lemmy. Probably also the last, but if the user count keeps increasing, who knows!

Particle spectrometers make very good random number generators, and I have a Lemmy bot on my instance that does I-Ching divination that uses an inferior random number source (diode breakdown). I need a particle spectrometer for some science anyway, and it doesn't really cost more to make 2. How could I not, right?