I’m not sure that would work. Admins need to manage their instance users, yes, but they also need to look out for the posts and comments in the communities hosted on their instance, and be one level of appeal above the mods of those communities. Including the ability to actually delete content hosted in those communities, or cached media on their own servers, in response to legal obligations.

They’re actually only about 48% accurate, meaning that they’re more often wrong than right and you are 2% more likely to guess the right answer.

Wait what are the Bayesian priors? Are we assuming that the baseline is 50% true and 50% false? And what is its error rate in false positives versus false negatives? Because all these matter for determining after the fact how much probability to assign the test being right or wrong.

Put another way, imagine a stupid device that just says “true” literally every time. If I hook that device up to a person who never lies, then that machine is 100% accurate! If I hook that same device to a person who only lies 5% of the time, it’s still 95% accurate.

So what do you mean by 48% accurate? That’s not enough information to do anything with.

Yeah, from what I remember of what Web 2.0 was, it was services that could be interactive in the browser window, without loading a whole new page each time the user submitted information through HTTP POST. “Ajax” was a hot buzzword among web/tech companies.

Flickr was mind blowing in that you could edit photo captions and titles without navigating away from the page. Gmail could refresh the inbox without reloading the sidebar. Google maps was impressive in that you could drag the map around and zoom within the window, while it fetched the graphical elements necessary on demand.

Or maybe web 2.0 included the ability to implement states in the stateless HTTP protocol. You could log into a page and it would only show you the new/unread items for you personally, rather than showing literally every visitor the exact same thing for the exact same URL.

Social networking became possible with Web 2.0 technologies, but I wouldn’t define Web 2.0 as inherently social. User interactions with a service was the core, and whether the service connected user to user through that service’s design was kinda beside the point.

Wouldn’t a louder room raise the noise floor, too, so that any quieter signal couldn’t be extracted from the noisy background?

If we were to put a microphone and recording device in that room, could any amount of audio processing be able to extract the sound of the small server out from the background noise of all the bigger servers? Because if not, then that’s not just a auditory processing problem, but a genuine example of destruction of information.

Was that in 2000? My own vague memory was that Linux started picking up some steam in the early 2000’s and then branched out to a new audience shortly after Firefox and Ubuntu hit the scene around 2004, and actually saw some adoption when Windows XP’s poor security and Windows Vista’s poor hardware support started breaking things.

So depending on the year, you could both be right.

Do you have a source for AMD chips being especially energy efficient?

I remember reviews of the HX 370 commenting on that. Problem is that chip was produced on TSMC’s N4P node, which doesn’t have an Apple comparator (M2 was on N5P and M3 was on N3B). The Ryzen 7 7840U was N4, one year behind that. It just shows that AMD can’t get on a TSMC node even within a year or two of Apple.

Still, I haven’t seen anything really putting these chips through the paces and actually measuring real world energy usage while running a variety of benchmarks. And the fact that benchmarks themselves only correlate to specific ways that computers are used, aren’t necessarily supported on all hardware or OSes, and it’s hard to get a real comparison.

SoCs are inherently more energy efficient

I agree. But that’s a separate issue from instruction set, though. The AMD HX 370 is a SoC (well, technically, SiP as pieces are all packaged together but not actually printed on the same piece of silicon).

And in terms of actual chip architectures, as you allude, the design dictates how specific instructions are processed. That’s why the RISC versus CISC concepts are basically obsolete. These chip designers are making engineering choices on how much silicon area to devote to specific functions, based on their modeling of how that chip might be used: multi threading, different cores optimized for efficiency or power, speculative execution, various specialized tasks related to hardware accelerated video or cryptography or AI or whatever else, etc., and then deciding how that fits into the broader chip design.

Ultimately, I’d think that the main reason why something like x86 would die off is licensing reasons, not anything inherent to the instruction set architecture.

it’s kinda undeniable that this is where the market is going. It is far more energy efficient than an Intel or AMD x86 CPU and holds up just fine.

Is that actually true, when comparing node for node?

In the mobile and tablet space Apple’s A series chips have always been a generation ahead of Qualcomm’s Snapdragon chips in terms of performance per watt. Meanwhile, Samsung’s Exynos has always been behind even more. That’s obviously not an instruction set issue, since all 3 lines are on ARM.

Much of Apple’s advantage has been a willingness to pay for early runs on each new TSMC node, and a willingness to dedicate a lot of square millimeters of silicon to their gigantic chips.

But when comparing node for node, last I checked AMD’s lower power chips designed for laptop TDPs, have similar performance and power compared to the Apple chips on that same TSMC node.

Honestly, this is an easy way to share files with non-technical people in the outside world, too. Just open up a port for that very specific purpose, send the link to your friend, watch the one file get downloaded, and then close the port and turn off the http server.

It’s technically not very secure, so it’s a bad idea to leave that unattended, but you can always encrypt a zip file to send it and let that file level encryption kinda make up for lack of network level encryption. And as a one-off thing, you should close up your firewall/port forwarding when you’re done.

Yeah, if OP has command line access through rsync then the server is already configured to allow remote access over NFS or SMB or SSH or FTP or whatever. Setting up a mounted folder through whatever file browser (including the default Windows Explorer in Windows or Finder in MacOS) over the same protocol should be trivial, and not require any additional server side configuration.

Yeah, I mean I do still use rsync for the stuff that would take a long time, but for one-off file movement I just use a mounted network drive in the normal file browser, including on Windows and MacOS machines.

What if I told you that there are really stupid comments on Lemmy as well

That’s why I think the history of the U.S. phone system is so important. AT&T had to be dragged into interoperability by government regulation nearly every step of the way, but ended up needing to invent and publish the technical standards that made federation/interoperability possible, after government agencies started mandating them. The technical infeasibility of opening up a proprietary network has been overcome before, with much more complexity at the lower OSI layers, including defining new open standards regarding the physical layer of actual copper lines and switches.

I’d argue that telephones are the original federated service. There were fits and starts to getting the proprietary Bell/AT&T network to play nice with devices or lines not operated by them, but the initial system for long distance calling over the North American Numbering Plan made it possible for an AT&T customer to dial non-AT&T customers by the early 1950’s, and set the groundwork for the technical feasibility of the breakup of the AT&T/Bell monopoly.

We didn’t call it spam then, but unsolicited phone calls have always been a problem.

But the big one here is the characteristic word. By adding Fenyx Rising, it could be argued that that, in addition to the material differences between the products, there is enough separation to ensure there is no risk of confusion from audiences. There are also multiple Immortals trademarks which could make that word in and of itself less defensible depending on the potential conflict.

That’s basically it right there. The word “immortal” has multiple dictionary definitions tracing back long before any trademark, including a [prominent ancient military unit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortals_(Achaemenid_Empire\)) so any trademark around that word isn’t strong enough to prevent any use of the word as a normal word, or even as part of another trademark when used descriptively.

The strongest trademark protection comes for words that are totally made up for the purpose of the product or company. Something like Hulu or Kodak.

Next up are probably mashed up words that might relate to existing words but are distinct mashups or modifications, like GeForce or Craisins.

Next up, words that have meaning but are completely unrelated to the product itself, like Apple (computers) and Snickers (the candy bar) or Tide (the laundry detergent).

Next up are suggestive marks where the trademark relies on the meaning to convey something about the product itself, but still retains some distinctiveness: InSinkErator is a brand of in-sink disposal, Coffee Mate is a non-dairy creamer designed for mixing into coffee, Joy-Con is a controller designed to evoke joy, etc.

Some descriptive words don’t get trademark protection until they enter the public consciousness as a distinct indicator of its origin or manufacture. Name-based businesses often fall into this category, like a restaurant named after the owner, and don’t get protection until it’s popular enough (McDonald’s is the main example).

It can get complicated, but the basic principle underlying all of it is that if you choose a less unique word as the name of your trademark, you’ll get less protection against others using it.

Loops really isn’t ready for primetime. It’s too new and unpolished, and will need a bit more time.

I wonder if peertube can scale. YouTube has a whole sophisticated system for ingesting and transcoding videos into dozens of formats, with tradeoffs being made on computational complexity versus file size/bandwidth, which requires some projection on which videos will be downloaded the most times in the future (and by which types of clients, with support for which codecs, etc.). Doing this can require a lot of networking/computing/memory/storage resources, and I wonder if the software can scale.

Works for me on Sync.

Perhaps I’ve erred in framing it in heteronormative terms, but it seems that the type of problem being described does depend in part on sexual orientation, and the main point I’m making isn’t gendered at all. You’ve framed romantic partnership as the cornerstone of healthy social interaction, something that needs to be in place first in order for men to thrive socially. I see it as more of a capstone, the last thing to put in place after already building up something strong and robust.

People who are emotionally and socially healthy can find romantic partners that complement them well, without putting too much on that relationship or even straining it from over-burdening that link.

The thing is that you can be the best friend in the world, a partner will always come first for the other person.

And so framing it as being a competition or ranking ignores how these things are complementary. Having strong outside friendships improves the romantic relationships and strengthens the long term commitment there. Expecting the romantic partner to be the everything is what makes people lonely, because we’re not built for drifting independent pairings untethered to the rest of society. We partner up and the web of relationships outside that relationship provides bracing support for the romantic link itself.

Toxic masculinity is the expectation that men can’t be certain things, including emotionally supportive, and that stifling effect on male relationships with others isolates those men. The loneliness that follows is part of it, almost an inevitable consequence of it.

That’s what I’m talking about, though. You see male friendships as a method of coping with a more fundamental problem relating to women, and I totally disagree, and argue that healthy male friendships are social connections worth developing and maintaining in their own right, whether you are or aren’t in a committed relationship with a woman. Even your framing of why male friendships fall apart involves women. It’s the centrality of women in your worldview that is preventing you from seeing how male friendships are a critical thing to have in addressing male loneliness.

Put another way, married men need healthy male friendships, too. Putting all of that emotional labor into a single link with a woman is fragile and unreliable, and I’d argue inherently unhealthy. People need multiple social links and the resilience and support that comes from whole groups connected in a web, not just a bunch of isolated pairings.

And to be clear, I’m not saying that friendships are a replacement for romantic and sexual relationships. I’m saying that social fluency, empathy, and thoughtfulness necessary for being able to maintain deep friendships are important skillsets for maintaining romantic relationships as well. The lack of romantic partners, then, isn’t the “base issue,” but is a symptom of the internal state of the person and how that person interacts with the world.

So I maintain that your worldview switches cause and effect, at least compared to mine. And maybe I’m wrong, and I’m not trying to convince you that I’m right. I’m bringing all this up to share that the surprising part of this line of comments is that I was genuinely not expecting someone to treat romantic difficulties as a primary or fundamental cause of male loneliness. To show you that at least there are other people who view these issues very differently from you, and that there’s a broad diversity of thought on the topic.

Again not talking about the main issue that every men that feel alone will tell you as the root of their problem:

-Lack of a relationship.

-Lack of friendships due other friends being invested in their relationships.

Actually, your comment touches on something that is really interesting to me, and a major part of where you and I differ on what male loneliness means. You’ve elevated the romantic committed relationship with a woman as the primary means by which men are expected to derive social standing and stability, but I view it primarily as an issue of friendships, mainly friendships with other men. The loneliness problem, in my view, comes from men being unable to form strong relationships with other men, and a wife or girlfriend or whatever is secondary to that.

Maybe it’s because I’ve always had stability in my friendships but didn’t have committed romantic relationships until my 30’s, but it seems like the problem of loneliness comes from not feeling like you have people in your corner (friends, family, even work colleagues), but I think focusing on sexual and romantic relationships is itself isolating and lonely, even for men who do get married. Now that I’m married I still spend plenty of time with my friends, married or single, based on the topic/activity/interest that ties us together.

Because plenty of men who do not comply to gender norms or toxic masculinity (or masculinity at all) still feel alone. And their experience get invalidated by this explanation.

It sounds like you completely miss the application of the explanation itself. The phrase toxic masculinity describes the social norms and expectations that men act a certain way. Society imposes gender norms on people such that those who don’t comply are at the highest risk of being shunned or ostracized, and having trouble making social connections. And the social pressure may make men act in ways they wouldn’t otherwise, so that they grow up poorly equipped to be introspective and understand their own wants/desires/emotions/drives/motivations.

Toxic masculinity tells men what they’re not allowed to be, and tells men what they must be. Both sides of that same coin are toxic to men, and by extension those that the men interact with.