Our group played this system for a short bit. We loved the social combat system and the pooled resources. A good DM can absolutely make it feel like a Star Trek episode. Our problem with the system, is that you have to play the lawfull good guys for it to work well; just like a Star Trek episode. Our group likes to play morally grey.

Since they will not use Github for Pull Requests, bug tracking, or any other bonus feature on top of git, I have to disagree. It would be super easy to change the host of their git repo.

What you are mentioning is forcing companies to comply when selling inside the EU or California. The EU does not force companies to comply with their specifications outside of the EU. Companies simply do so because it is convenient.

The EU cannot decide how cars should be made that are sold in California. If they tried, I bet the US government would have something to say about it.

What the EU can do, is exert influence to get other governments to adopt the same rules. This already happens with a lot of countries surrounding the EU. But asking another government to adopt rules, is wildly different from forcing companies to adhere to those rules inside the borders of another government.

Not entirely. There still exists trade agreements, and diplomatic pushback.

Forcing companies to make products to a certain specification, would mean the EU is attempting to regulate other markets. Markets it has no direct governance over. While it may come from good intentions, it still invades the authonomy of the governments that should have governance over these markets.

Much better would be to work together with other countries, and help these countries implement similar rules, and enforce them together. Like, pretty much that the EU is doing for its members in the first place.

It is only logical that an algorithm trained on the ways of a Vulcan, is precise and accurate in it operation and communication. Vastly more fascinating are the result when you ask it to behave like a human.

The problem with C++ is not the lack of safety features. It’s the ever lasting backwards compatibility that is keeping it both alive and down at the same time.

Having to support 50 year old code, is going to limit any restriction you place. But it is usually the restrictions that make a language good.

Example: You can write perfectly good modern C++ code without any pointers. But pointers are so ingrained into the language, that it is impossible to remove them.

Google is not a mobile phone network provider. SMS routing is not really their cup of tea. It is an industry with lots of established players, lota of local issues, and little to gain for Google. If it where up to Google, everyone would be using their app instead of SMS.

I don’t understand why someone would want to rent their car. Maintenance is not that hard, and companies always make you pay way more for their subscription models. By owning the car, you can pick who does maintenance. Meaning there can be competition, so prices/quality remains good.

For some, this subscription model is great. But do you agree, that is it a bad thing if they force it on us?

Europa Universalis IV and Stellaris. For exactly the same reasons.

I spend way too much time in those games. Hundreds of hours each. But the end game is just too much of a slog. You already won, so there is no challenge; the framerate tanks into unplayable territory; and the micromanagement to manage the late game wars and economy becomes insane.

But starting with a different empire, and doing early/mid game again is awsome!

Should a dedicated search not use/index ActivityPub instead of the html interface?

If so, instances can simply defederate from search engine instances. So the point you are trying to make still holds.

1. Threads federates
2. Threads hosts 99% of all content and all users.
3. Threads releases and update that allows a new feature. Example: they add buyable threads gold, that you can reward to a post or comment.
4. The rest of the fediverse can’t implement this feature, and is inherently left behind in terms of features.
5. Threads releases an update that breaks federation. 99% of the users do not notice.
6. It takes Threads 3 months to fix the issue.
7. Go back to step 5.

Every non-Threads participant will have less features, and is constantly struggling to keep up with the changes and bugs of Threads. Result: the fediverse cannot grow. Only the most stubborn anti-Meta users will accept the objectively worse experience, just to avoid using Threads. But the average user will just use Threads, instead of joining Mastodon, Kbin, Lemmy, or any of the many other fediverse instances that Threads can federate with.

“You can simply remove the appraiserres.dll file in the Windows 11 ISO file to make the Setup avoid these checks and install Windows 11 on any unsupported hardware too.” From the following article: https://nerdschalk.com/how-to-use-rufus-to-disable-tpm-and-secure-boot-in-bootable-windows-11-usb-drive/

That sounds hard, but Rufus made this easy. Just select the right option. So just use Rufus to create the install usb: https://rufus.ie/en/#

This also allows local accounts, and disables all the tracking bullshit with a single click each.

Disabling the tpm requirement is just a registry hack in win 10, or a selectable option when creating an install usb with rufus.

I think they will make a simple calculation; What is going to cost more: The bad PR of nolonger updating 240 million pc’s, or accepting that a small portion of your users does not have tpm?

They haven’t stopped advanced users from installing win11 on older hardware so far. So no loss there. I also doubt they lose enterprise money if they allow win10 to upgrade regardless, as tpm is now well entrenched as the default on new hardware.

Or just circumvent the “requiments” that are so required that a few registry hacks disable them, allowing you upgrade to win11 via windows update.

Or if you want a fresh install, use rufus to create the install usb stick, and select the option to disable the tpm requirement.

This info needs to be more widespread.

New users will look at lemmy.world before they create an account. They will choose to join after seeing threads posts and comments on the front page. The default settings will keep them looking at threads untill they figure out they can block it. But when they do, they realise that 90% of all posts and comments came from threads, and they just disabled most of the content.

I would be ok with an opt-in mechanism, where the default settings and the anonymous settings disable threads content, but you can unblock them.

I already saw this happening on Reddit. The largest subreddit were filled with generic posts. They got a lot of content, not necessarily good content. But there were plenty of small or medium sized subreddits that had much better content. The Fediverse feels like it is missing the big subreddits. It also feels too small to have the small niche subreddits. What is here in terms of content feels more like a few medium sized subreddits.

There is a subtle, but important, difference between letting people know your product exists or improved, and brainwashing people into buying your product.

Is a grocery saleman at the local saturday market allowed to shout about the sale he is doing on strawberries? Because that is also marketing.

I fully agree that the average advertisement you see on youtube is pure cancer. But what about an advertisement for an emergency fund for a disaster?

What about a sponsored video of a game?

Where do you draw the line?

More like “fediverse” instead of “social”. Facebook is also a “social”, but it does not communicate with other fediverse instances. The fact that you are federated and share content is what should be in the name.

And behold: many instances DO use fediverse over lemmy in their name.

But Lemmy is not perfectly compatible with Mastodon and kbin. At the time some of the instances were made, Lemmy could not even federate with Mastodon at all. So it makes sense that instaces explicitly picked a name with Lemmy in it.