Yeah it’s not a mastodon issue any more than racist speech is an issue with our ability to vocalize as humans.
Similarly, the solution to people saying racist things isn’t for all speech to be policed by a central authority, it’s for societies themselves to learn to identify and reject racism.
The problem in many cases isn’t that they don’t literally see it but that they aren’t aware of what constitutes racism a lot of the time.
I agree with this part, “in many cases” sure,
That’s the primary issue here.
…but I think this a strong claim to make unless you have data to back it up.
I believe you and I are likely speaking from our own anecdotal experience on the platform, and for all we know, most people are in instance bubbles and are also speaking from their own perspectives.
If the “primary issue” is “why do some people not report seeing racism?” and the two possible explanations are either “they see it but are not aware” and “they actually never see it”, then unless we have accurate data from all those bubbles, we can’t make any claims about which is the real explanation.
But if you have data on this, that would change everything.
Comparing the “racism” present on a federated service to that on a centralized one doesn’t make sense. You can say certain instances of the service fail to adequately moderate racism, but there are so many niche pockets of mastodon that most people are exposed to, and moderated by, completely different groups.
To make a slightly more nerdy analogy, it’s like someone saying “the windows desktop experience is better than Linux”. Well Linux doesn’t come with a desktop interface, so that statement doesn’t make sense. Which of the dozens of windowers/distros are you talking about? I’m sure the criticism is fair, but it doesn’t contain enough information to make any real claim.
So it’s not unreasonable for one person to say “I see racism on Mastodon” and many others to say “I never see it”, and not just because of the races of the people involved. “Mastodon” refers to a protocol, not the various ecosystems that use it.
Not only is that unprovable, it seems highly unlikely.
To be clear, these are not the only two options, just the biggest and most new-user-friendly.
I got started in gnome, but am currently using Hyprland (and QTile if I need X)
I keep seeing this going around. It will be VERY interesting to see the same plot in a few years.
It does allow this,
You may use the software for any purpose.
You may modify the software only for non-commercial purposes such as personal use for research, experiment, and testing for the benefit of public knowledge, personal study, private entertainment, hobby projects, amateur pursuits, or religious observance, all without any anticipated commercial application.
You may distribute the software or any part of its source code only if you do so free of charge for non-commercial purposes.
But hey, way to read the source material before explaining it to someone ;)
I apologize, I got your comment confused with the other person’s who said the ability to commercialize is the important detail FUTO’s license is missing. You had said, “they require some form of ability to fork the code, and to be able to do useful things with that fork” which the FUTO license does already explicitly allow, so I assumed by “and do useful things” you also meant “commercialize”.
So yeah it sounds like we’re in agreement, and the FUTO license is already reasonably “open source”.
The more accurate way to say that is, “open source” has a very clear meaning to a very specific set of people who agree with OSI’s definition. But language evolves, they don’t have a copyright on the term, more people have heard the term “open source” than have heard about the OSI, so “open source” means whatever most people believe it to mean.
Velcro can be upset when people call competitors’ hook-and-loop technology Velcro, but the rest of the world don’t even know they exist.
And philosophically, I think it’s time OSI updates their definition to fit the times. As stated above, I think the guarantee of unfettered commercialization is antithetical to FOSS goals. And again, I’d be glad to be convinced otherwise.
I don’t see anything wrong with limiting the commercialization of your code. I don’t agree that limiting someone from monetizing your code in a way you disagree with precludes them from “doing useful things” with a fork. Equating usefulness with commercialization seems implicitly capitalist and antithetical to FOSS. CMV.
Gotcha.
Yeah, it sounds like it’s not “open source” according to a specific definition set by the OSI. But the term “open source” has grown beyond what they believe it to mean, and the FUTO license seems more than reasonable to me.
I think the freedom to commercialize worked in the past, but we now live in a time of weaponized commercialization, especially in the mobile world. It seems reasonable to me for them to want to ensure their code is not commercialized in ways that are antithetical to the purpose of the project.
For reference, here is the license. I’m curious which part makes it “not fully open source”.
“Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game.”
“Completely” made up is a bit hyperbole. They’re not random, they are usually in some way indicative of the number of upvotes/downvotes a post is getting.
The reality is that any naive upvote system can be gamed. The more popular Lemmy gets, the more lucrative it will be to systematically manipulate which posts/comments are promoted and which get buried. And a naive voting system that just reflects the raw number of up/down votes is trivial to manipulate. It’s harder than a signal in the noise issue, it’s more of a signal in a deliberately crafted manipulated signal issue.
If Lemmy gets more popular, it’s only a matter of time before it’s forced to come up with alternative methods for deriving post sentiment.
“Runs like shit” is expected when you’re relying on paging to system memory every frame, step 1 is to avoid a crash from oom/failed alloc.
The next step is to reduce paging if possible. I see C:S2 has a min spec of a 4GB GPU. Assuming they actually tuned their game for such a card on windows, the unfortunate reality of proton/DXVK is that there’s a bit of a memory overhead and lack of knowledge about residency priority, especially when translating a dx11 game.
DX12 maps to Vulkan more closely, so my hope is that the -force-d3d12 flag would give DXVK better info to work with (ex. hopefully the game makes use of dx12 heaps and placed resources, which are 1:1 with vulkan concepts, and dxvk can make use of that to better ensure the most important resources don’t get paged out).
The -force-d3d12 option is a param to the actual game, so it would go after command% (or by itself if no prefixes are being added).
Yeah, unfortunately I never use yt from a browser, and grayjay doesn’t have dearrow support afaik.
No idea what the state of this topic is in Japan.
Just faxed them about it. Will get back to you as soon as they respond.
Assuming C:S2 uses DX and you’re running it through proton/dxvk, it’s ultimately the Vulkan driver’s job to page to system memory correctly. This honestly sounds like you’re seeing a bug. In that circumstance, it shouldn’t crash, it should just hurt performance from all the paging. I see a couple of older issues where people were seeing exactly this kind of issue with DXVK+Nvidia.
One other thing to try is, idk if you’re running the game in dx11 or dx12 mode, but apparently both exist. If it’s currently running in dx11 mode, try the launch flag -force-d3d12. If you’re already using dx12, maybe try swapping back to dx11. Good luck!
I remember knowing that knives will cut you and make you bleed, and that when people were shot in movies they would bleed, therefore bullets must be shaped like little blades.