hetscop

While I think that the article is correct in stating that mastodon isn't currently a serious competitor to facebook, it's possible that it (or something else based of activitypub) might become that one day. I think that there's a decent chance that facebook might want to prevent fediverse spaces from potentially becoming serious competitors, and even if that's not the main reason why their implementing activitypub, if e.g. mastodon ever does get to a point where it can challange meta (which I think most of us are hoping!) then facebook will use the position of power they will have over activitypub to try to prevent that. I think it's a misstake to give facebook any power of our spaces because that means essentially giving up on the idea of an internet not controlled by large corporations like facebook.

I don't think there's any risk of someone stealing your kbin account with this, however I do think that admins can access more data than normal users, including from federated instances. They where only logged in on the web, and I think you can only access that kind of data by accessing the database more directly, which the exploit wouldn't have allowed the hackers to do.

It's honestly amazing that perhaps the aspect of technology that has most profoundly shaped peoples lives during the 2010s has turned out to be almost completely financially unsustainable

Having a single player control most of the market - like meta - means that they will have a lot of sway over how the protocol is developed. This is propably a bad thing since meta har different goals than people currently using the fediverse and also have financial incentives to get people to move over to their platforms instead.

I feel like instagram is one one of those apps - at least the way I use it - that relies on a lot of your irl friends having it as well. I would love for them to be open to signing up to some fediverse platform but we're not there right now sadly.

Lemmy is the most reddit like experience if that's what you're after, but I'd reccomend getting a couple different accounts, browsing around and seeing what works and then settling on what's most fun

Right now fediverse is mostly made up of techy people - which is fine! But there are many other kinds of people you might potentially want to interact with online. Threads could bring in normies and celebs to the metaverse. Normies are a mixed bag - this includes your racist uncle but also your really cool and funny friend who can't be bothered to set up a mastodon account. Celebs are a source of real world influence (I'm including politicians and journalists for example in this category) which is obviously attractive. I'm gonna miss cyberbullying local politicians on twitter, and it would be nice to be able to continue doing so through the comfort of e.g. kbin.

I get your point and I largely agree but it isn't that hard to see the appeal of threads for me. I don't think it's gonna work out in the end though so I really hope they mostly stay of the broader fediverse.

The way I see it, you can still talk to your friends by making a threads account (or an account on an instance that federates with meta). If meta EEE's the whole fediverse, you won't have the ability to talk to unshowered strangers free of big corporations anymore.

If we buy that the reason for meta joining ActivityPub is to EEE it, that means that meta sees the fediverse as a potential future competitor that they want to nip in the bud. I would rather leave that bud un-nipped and give it a chance to one day become an actual thorn in metas side, die out on its own terms or remain a niche community for freedom oriented tech-savvy nerds.

This is article is missleading about how quantum computing works.

Superposition increases the computing power of a quantum computer exponentially. For example, two qubits can exist in four states simultaneously (00, 01, 10, 11), three qubits in eight states, and so on. This allows quantum computers to process a massive number of possibilities at once.

Quantum computers aren't faster because they "process" multiple "possibilities" at once. Quantum computers aren't any faster than regular computers when it comes to general purpose computing. You can exploit some interesting properties about quantum computing to solve certain problems asymptotically faster, like with Shor's algorithm.

This means that the time to solve a problem as the size of the problem grows scales better. Using Shor's algorithm, the time to factor a polynomial is proprtional to (log N)^2 log log N, where N is the size of the input data, instead of the fastest known non-quantum algorithm which takes time proportional to e^(1.9(log N)^(1/3)(log log N)^(2/3)). Note that the majority of problems that we would maybe like to solve using a computer don't have any fancy quantum algorithms asociated with them and as such are no faster than a normal computer,

Given a large enough problem that can be solved with a quantum algorithm, a quantum computer will eventually outperform a non-quantum computer. This does not mean that quantum computers can solve arbitrary problems quickly.

neomut, because I have linux brain damage