I literally was not confined to this thread, which is blatantly obvious if you know how context works.
Making up an argument no one in the discussion has made is called the "Strawman Fallacy". Why should anyone in this thread care that you talked to someone (allegedly) that was so dense that they made a bad argument that you got frustrated with?
If it’s too hard for some people to pay attention to what they’re doing and use a tool correctly
Ah, so much hyperbole. If I'm successfully stripping all of it away, is seems that your argument is that it is impossible (P=0) to accidentally send an SMS message in Signal, thinking it was a secure message. Is that really your stance? Admittedly, there was a lot of hyperbole so I might have missed the actual point. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
he thought it would be better for the user experience
Is this articulated somewhere because I was under the impression that everything was federated, and this plays right into the point. Why should this be up to the devs? Or, perhaps better worded, what information does the "ActivityPub" label actually tell an end user, right now? Seemingly nothing at all, from a functional standpoint. It's possible for two ActivityPub-labeled implementations to be completely incompatible, right? Does that sound good for users?
I just can't think of a devastating real world example.
Why is this your chosen metric? Wouldn't "this might make the users confused" be a better metric?
The extinguish step is a bit unclear to me.
Once they're the de facto standard they abandon it altogether and the users, who care little about the nuts and bolts of this, get frustrated and make an account on Threads (using your example).
It's worth keeping in mind that we're not talking about normal software. A hypothetical technically perfect solution is still a failure if there isn't a critical mass of users to make it "social".
Your solution ignores that all we really need to do (and I say that like it's easy but I acknowledge it's not) is remove the parts of our system that prevent an accurately representative government. Stuff like the electoral college, the cap on House seats, and the dominance of plurality voting. The root problem we see here is that a minority of people have more power over the government than the majority of people.
Like I said, this is much easier typed out than done, but it is not impossible, and is much more likely to succeed than "make a fascist country and give it a humongous border with the democratic country that it views as 'the enemy'" Even if there were a clean way to split it up (there isn't: cities are blue, rural areas are red), much of the red state's income comes from the federal taxes from blue states. Do you really think that's going to end well?
Nothing says "Hey ladies, we consider you Reproductive Chattel" like making the argument that women should be forced to give birth so that the state government can get more money.
Last time I checked downvotes in kbin are not federated at all, by design. Lemmy users cannot boost content at all as far as I'm aware, and it's not holding them back. Developers are completely capable of looking to past implementations and make informed decisions about interoperability in whatever way they see best fit
As I understand it, this is the exact complaint from the blog post. This is great for devs; it's not great for users. I am referencing this part:
Putting the ActivityPub logo on a project’s website and writing “we support ActivityPub” announcement posts makes technically versed people very happy, and people supporting open standards will read them with shining eyes. However, there is a secondary effect: these announcements carry over something to non-technical users as well. It tells users that this piece of software is compatible with other pieces of software that carry the same logo. But it is not. In another recent discussion, when someone asked me why diaspora* does not support ActivityPub yet, I claimed the project has two options here, which has a direct impact to how we can explain the compatibility with users on other networks:
Sorry, Alice, Bob is using software that is not compatible with us, so you can’t communicate with Bob here.
Yes, you can communicate with Bob, but since he is using ExampleNet, please be aware that Bob will not receive your photo albums and will be unable to interact with those. Carol will see your photos, though, but unfortunately, she will not be able to see your geo-location updates. Moreover, because of technical limitations, Dan can comment on your posts, but we cannot make sure that Carol and Bob see those, because we cannot redistribute Dan’s comments.
I, perhaps foolishly, assumed that ActivityPub was more structured than it actually is. Though, to be fair, as you point out, this is an older blog post, so there's some chance that things have improved on that front-- I admit I'm no expert on ActivityPub-- but notably, "there are only a few different implementations, so it's easy to dig around and make your new implementation compatible" isn't an improvement. It doesn't scale. It's practically begging for the now infamous EEE to happen to it, because whatever is the most popular implementation sort of becomes the standard.
You literally made up an argument no one made in this thread.
The fact of the matter is that it is unwise to have both secure and insecure messaging side-by-side. Depending on where you live, this could translate to a simple mistake resulting in imprisonment or worse. It's very important that a "secure messaging app" only allow secure messaging.
You, like myself, probably live in an area where accidentally sending a message critical of the government over an insecure message would not have any tangible consequences, so perhaps you're weighing the convenience as more important due to lack of perspective.
I think the link blog post author's point isn't that there can't be interoperability, only that there's no standard for that. You have to seek out each implementation and ensure that your implementation interoperates with theirs, on a case by case basis for every implementation.
That's a pretty specific requirement but luckily you can host your own VPN and access it on your device and then access the service you're hosting via a local address. So if you do run into this again know that there is a way to circumvent the need to rely on *checks notes* DNS.
I loved the game, myself, but I don't often recommend it to people because of all the controversy around the creators of the game being fired and no longer having any control over the game.
However, there was recently an UpIsNotJump video reviewing (I guess?) the game and it goes above and beyond. I've used his videos to convince people to try out games before-- maybe it would help you convince your friends to give it another try.
A federal government being willing to enforce the law Reconstruction style and send in federal troops to effect the arrest of these traitors and the unconditional surrender of their government. Anything less is just giving the anti-democratic forces time to get stronger and chip away at more of our society.
At first I was writing a comment to say the Posse Comitatus Act wouldn't allow this, but it seems like the Insurrection Act of 1807 is an exception, and would apply in this instance.
The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—
(1)so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2)opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.
Edit: I feel compelled to point out that we're not here yet, because the SCOTUS order has a review process for the new voting maps, and if a judge rejects them, the judge can authorize a third party to draw the maps for Alabama. If the Alabama government rejects those third-party maps, then shit gets real.
You're right, there's not much the federal government can do to force this directly, but indirectly, they can decide where federal funding goes. and Alabama gets 41.2% of it's state revenue from federal funding.
Raised by Wolves was pretty bizarre. I loved the first season, up until the weird flying worm thing, and second season just seemed off-the-rails batshit insane. haha
I was definitely intending to watch season 3, though I didn't really understand what was going on. I'm not completely surprised it was canceled.