I think most of here see it. But then again we already understand enough to move away from corporate social.

Totally great for Tom in the short to medium term. Long term… maybe, if he finds an isolated self-sufficient place to spend the rest of his days. Either way he’ll be better off than the rest of us no matter what.

Not sure if sarcastic or I didn’t make my point well enough. Just in case I’ll expand. The bad thing is that the system necessitates ever increasing profits. It’s not the individuals. If Zuck fucks off to paradise Zuck Prime would take over the social media market and keep finding ways to grow profits year-on-year. The problem with ever increasing profit is this profit comes from the wages and time of people one way or another, leaving less for other social things like paying to meet friends, a partner, having and raising children. Multiply this process to most firms in most markets and you’ll soon see that this leads to social instability, unrest, crisis, and worse. Like it’s happened in the past in different places around the world. Today in the US, Big Tech does it, Big Ag does it, Big Grocer does it, Big Insurance does it, Big Landlord does it, Big Pharma does it, Big Entertainment does it, and increasingly larger proportion of the population gets squeezed out of time and money… for the basics or luxuries like friends and partners. And they’re not gonna take it laying down. Electing Trump was one salvo, even if counterproductive.

Yes this is how things are supposed to work in the system but my point is that it’s a) driven by the system, not individuals, and b) the consequences are unsustainable.

Then use that to sell them products and adjust their worldview in profitable ways.

Thing is, it’s not the dude. It’s the system that forces most dudes to keep coming up with new ways to make ever higher profit. If they don’t, they open the door to competition that would. Then their competitor could eventually overtake them, take their customers and profits, then do a hostile or peaceful purchase of the dude’s firm.

1. The system makes people poorer in money and time, and social ability
2. People can’t afford to make and keep as many friends
3. The system gives people artificial friends that cost less

…

6. The system uses people’s artificial friends to reinforce itself

We can’t stop sovereign countries from banning services. We can however have external Fediverse services not comply with cutting off access to users from those sovereign countries, leaving it up them to ensure their citizens don’t have access. Since we’re not making off of doing business in those countries we can ignore non-legal requests instead of voluntarily complying. Then some of the more technical people in such places could use the existing tools for blocking circumvention in order to access the Fediverse if they really want to.

Apart from running many instances which keeps copies of other communities which happens automatically when a user on an instance subscribes to a community; organize larger instances into well funded non-profits that can weather attacks. Lemmy.ca, sh.itjust.works and Lemmy.world already have non-profits formed. An example of what this could look like is the Wikimedia Foundation. Obviously won’t be as wealthy at least not in the short term.

Oh man, Tim Wu was a trailblazer during the Net Neutrality war.

Wow, this could be significant if they succeed. DeepMind has done some of the more impactful work in AI like AlphaFold.

No 🙂‍↔️

Thunderbird. The “Mozilla problem” is greatly exaggerated and even if so, there are forks.

Great video. Steve keeps doing the good journalistic work.

The most reliable Linux OS out there, software and community. If there’s still people and computers in 50 years, Debian will still be around.

I was wondering when piracy is going to join the game. Awkwardly absent so far.

Perhaps more to do with this. Google no longer has legal problems in the US under Trump.

What the 🦆

Some additional keywords on the tech behind this extended range capability:

… self-generated anode battery technology (which no longer uses traditional graphite anode material but allows elements to deposit on the current collector in metallic form, increasing volumetric energy density by 60% and gravimetric energy density by 50%)

…

Additionally, CATL’s self-generated anode technology can be adapted to multiple material systems. For example, when paired with sodium-ion systems, the energy density can reach 350Wh/L; with phosphate systems, it can reach 680-780Wh/L; and with ternary systems, it can exceed 1000Wh/L.

Source

The source cites CATL, but this self-generating anode tech has apparently been studied for a while by more than CATL.

Be a shame they’ve left a poorly configured VPN node that allowed someone from a Chinese IP dump unknown quantities of IP. Happens all the time. And oh look the Chinese subsidiary hired some really talented people that got a new chip design in a record time!

Right, for profit companies famously have a history of just handing themselves over to totalitarian regimes.

There are Western for-profit companies who have Chinese subsidiaries developing and selling products in China. They make profits on those sales and hand them over to their shareholders in the West and in China. The Chinese government fully allows this so for-profit companies regularly do it. And yes the Chinese state often is a direct or indirect shareholder. But so could be Berkshire Hathaway. It’s not about handing over the ability to profit. It is about making profit. Also, Western for-profit companies often sell themselves to Chinese firms. E.g. Smithfield Foods, Syngenta and many others.

China has no successful companies that aren’t approved, controlled and often subsidized by the party.

That’s an interesting assertion. As far as I’m aware it’s typically the other way around. The companies that grow to be large enough or strategic enough give partial ownership to the government. Of course the government subsidizes important industries like every competent state does, but that doesn’t mean it owns every company it subsidizes. There’s no point in owning small fish. Some of those that grow even have foreign ownership. For example BYD has Berkshire Hathaway and BlackRock as some of its major shareholders.

So in the case of NVIDIA, it’s entirely plausible for the company to move operations in say Shenzhen, retaining most of its current ownership, perhaps giving some ownership to a Chinese state company. The profits keep flowing to BlackRock, Vanguard, Fidelity and Jensen Huang. Pretty sure they’ll approve it if it means more future profits compared to staying in the US and being unable to sell to China and others. For example if Trump decides that both EU and China are bad hombres and forbids AI chip sales to them, while the US economy tanks, decreasing the domestic sales.