hawkwind

This could always change at the whim of an admin as well. It’s good to have admin “teams” and even foundations, but a lot of the time there’s one person making those decisions.

Users and communities could be more portable. Admins should get to decide what is on their instance for sure, but right now there’s kind of a “lock in.” Which give admins disproportional control / responsibility. IMO.

You mean blocked instances right? AFAIK an instances “blocked users” is not published in aggregate. You’d have to comb through the modlog.

A quick, but a little dirty solution for this, would be communities having “tags” in their metadata. This wouldn’t prevent spam, or an accumulation of four trillion tags, but you could easily add “only these tags,” or “not these tags,” to any feed. User objects have metadata that is used like this (as the “bot” flag) already. I’m just familiar enough with the code to know it wouldn’t be a slam dunk, but it’s also not a breaking change or re-write!

More “portable” and secure identities would have been a good feature. The client could have handled most of the crypto required for signing and validating content. As it stands now, the instance Admin has complete control over your identity. Portable communities would follow that easily.

Most of the syncing issues are actually between the large instances or instances that having performance issues.

I'm not sure who you are quoting, or trying to reason with, but I agree with your sentiment. A profit driven company will do everything it can to profit. Are you trying to say we should "only" be mad at the government and not the company, in this scenario?

I had a "bearstein effect" moment just now. I had thought wireshark sold out. Like "Wireshark by Rapid7," but i just checked and it looks like they've stayed the FOSS course! Way to go!

I get that, and I support everything you're saying. It feels like the workers are getting played by the companies though. Workers should be lobbying for rights to the state, federal and municipal levels, but this feels like a "red herring" of a bill to get behind.

Buy the dip!!!

I’m not sure it’s as crystallized as that yet, but I agree with your sentiment. Everyone should have the right to choose to die but if the reason is “there was no other option,” then, we should be damn well sure we offered everything we could. Let’s not be taking societal shortcuts to “oh well, we gave it our best shot.”

I support someone’s right to end their own suffering, 100%, but it is very bad form to: be ABLE to help someone, INGORE that they are suffering, but SMILE while helping them polish their gun.

Vendor lock-in is 100 times worse today than it was 20 years ago. It’s vile, insidious and borderline cruel. Microsoft doesn’t want to work with anyone, they never have and they never will.

Any feelings of openness and cooperation you get from them is engineered, from the ground up, to ensure that they are in a position of control over you.

Their crack security team is not the result of some spontaneous and sudden desire to protect their customers. It’s a consequence of having to constantly triage the financial impacts of a never-ending stream of critical vulnerabilities.

Labelling this proprietary shit “ecosystems” is insulting to ecosystems. They mere notion that you should be using Microsoft software to monitor, secure and protect your Microsoft software is downright ridiculous.

Microsoft is not the only, and maybe not even the worst, in a long list of hand-wringing, life-sucking, progress-hindering companies who people will willingly defend because these companies have forced their way into becoming a part of our identities.