I've heard of instances carrying a lot of Nazi content being banned, and of instances choosing not to re-host adult media (which makes the interface a bit worse, but doesn't actually block you from getting that). But most admins from what I've seen are pretty clear on this in the about page of the instance.

70% seems like a wild claim.

I have had content I like being removed from major social media platforms, like reddit and tumblr.

Also, if you choose an instance and it gets shut down, you just start another account. This isn't serious business, it's social media. To me, complaining about having to choose an instance to start is like complaining about having to choose a class at the start of an RPG.

Personally, I really love mastodon as a platform and I don't understand all the hate it gets here.

But I wouldn't be surpised if we start seeing self-hosted minecraft or factorio servers with ipv6 only.

This is a tricky question. I don't think most societal problems have a technological solution, but those are all examples of societal problems where technology could play a big part in the solution. If technology plays a big part of a solution, is it a technological solution?

If you want to scale your entire object, there's a scale part operation in the part toolbench.

But in general you wouldn't want to do this. For most real world part, the dimensions you set are based on real world requirements. E.g. These holes need to be M3 and spaced 30mm apart because that's what the part we are connecting to has, but the space to the next set of holes should scale linearly with the length growing, etc.

If you have requirements like that, you should build them into your constraints. If you do this from the start, it's usually pretty easy to make size adjustments to your model.

There's a lot of options, and I think a lot of it is a matter of taste/experience what to use

You still aren't allowed to start a group to collectively patch bugs in the old version.

If you delete the first 13 words from my previous comment it may be a more suitable comment for you.

You can't legally get old versions of Windows or Photoshop, and you can't legally fix them if you find problems. GNOME gives you that freedom.

This isn't just a theoretical possibility: both MATE and Cinnamon are GNOME forks.

You can argue that maintaining and developing a desktop environment is an huge project and you can't expect someone to take that on - I completely agree, which is why I think we should be thankful of the developers instead of complaining about being "forced" to use new versions of their software.

Having technical discussions about the merits is fine, but in the end in the free/open source software model the people that make the technical decisions are the ones that make the technology possible. And if so many of those people are moving to Wayland, maybe there is a reason for that.

Sensationalist and misleading news is caused by newspapers that need to appeal to advertising and rich backers. Paying for news is the solution to these issues.

In my experience, paid news sources are better than free ones already in these aspects. Not perfect, but a lot better.

- They seem less sensationalist, I guess because they don't depend on clicks to survive - They tell a more complete, less dumbed down story than free sources - They are more boring than free sources

If you want to be informed, the "pay for journalists" model is much better than "hope that advertisers or billionaires pay for you" model.

You can argue that being informed is pointless, but I would argue that independent people working to get informed and then questioning issues is a vital point in a democracy. One model for this is journalists, even if you're not actually reading it.

So I guess the whole game software, or at least a significant part, is loaded encrypted and runs encrypted. It's on the users hardware but the user can't access it.

The only thing I can think of: You say the game payload is encrypted using the public key of a secure enclave. This means the open source game launcher has to pass the public key to the server doing the encryption. Could you not supply a fake public key that goes to a virtual secure enclave? I guess the public key could be signed by intel or something, is that something that happens on current TPMs?

Would it even be possible to do this if the program had to run under Proton/Wine? The original subject here is the launcher running on Linux.

I do wander about the use of an open source launcher at this point though. As someone who prefers open source software, the idea of encrypted software running on my PC makes me uncomfortable, more than just closed source software.

If I can send you the private key and the game and it allows you to run the game with no further inputs, then the DRM is trivially broken (even without open source).

If it does some online check, then if the source is open we can easily make a version that bypasses the online check.

If there is some check on the local PC (e.g. the key only works if some hardware ID is set correctly), we can easily find out what it checks, capture that information, package it, and make a new version of the launcher that uses this packaged data instead of the real machine data.

If you use a private key to go online and retrieve more data, having it be open source makes it trivial to capture that data, package it, and write a new version of the launcher that uses that packaged data.

Basically, DRM requires that there is something that is not easy to copy, and it being open source makes it a lot easier to copy.

I've never had a mastodon.social account, but I can understand the frustration of having technical issues. If you really wanted to join, like you said, you can just try joining on a different server or even software - with other social networks you generally don't get that choice.

But it looks like you gave it a try and made the rational choice that, for you, it's not worth that effort.

But just because it's not your thing, and it's not the biggest one out there, doesn't mean it failed or missed it's shot. Personally I think it's pretty amazing that an open source project, with no VC money or marketing department or big corporate tie in, has about a million active users, and has for a long time now.

Farmers typically have more knowledge and more budget for good advisors than consumer health insurance buyers. There are all kinds of business insurance, and I think these are not usually considered as horrible as health insurance. Also, with good insurance you've got a partner who is very invested in understanding the risks you're taking and letting you know (in the form of how much you have to pay).

Some subsidies are probably a good idea, especially where you want to encourage behaviors that would not naturally be encouraged by the market (e.g. getting farmers to not grow crops that you don't want them to grow, or do things that are good for the environment but not legally required).

Sometimes it's probably neutral, where the food is cheaper in the supermarket but taxes are higher and in the end it's just the consumer paying anyway. My guess is that this usually isn't the most efficient way to get money from consumers to farmers.

And sometimes subsidies are actively harmful, like when they encourage growing crops beyond what the market requires.

Active users are measured in different ways by different platforms, so if we compare registered users, fedi has 12.5M compared to 42M for Bluesky. So it's approximately 25% of the size.

It's not the best place to go if you want to get a large following, and it's not Serious Business, but as a user that's not what I want from a social platform. I have plenty of people to follow who are talking about things that interest me.

You're welcome to come have a look if you want, but otherwise no worries. We're doing fine. Maybe you'll check it out sometime when some drama happens at Bluesky. The fediverse is not going away any time soon.

Can you explain more why insurance is a parasite? Maybe a state-run insurance would be better?

Subsidies (AFAIK, please correct me if I'm wrong) typically either get paid when farming supplies (tractors, seeds, fertilizer, land etc.) are bought or when the final product is sold. So they are paid when things go well for the farmer, but not (or less so) when the farmer has a bad year.

I feel like the risk of bad years would be better managed by paying farmers when bad years happen. You know, like insurance.