• 0 Posts
  • 10 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 15th, 2023

help-circle





  • But it does.
    Example: You’re on lemmy.world. Let’s say lemmy.world defederates lemmy.ml today.

    Now you won’t be able to see any new posts made by users of lemmy.ml, be it on lemmy.ml itself or on any other instance. You will still see everything that was posted up until the defederation though because defederation just means that your instance won’t request new copies of the content of lemmy.ml .
    And they also can’t post stuff on comunities of lemmy.world(I believe they technically could do that, just that nobody could see it, but it may be that by now it’s entirely blocked to even make a post there).

    Now as long as lemmy.ml doesn’t defederate lemmy.world too, their users will still be able to see your comments and may also reply to your comments on other instances, but you won’t see that.

    So defederation mainly serves two purposes for the users of the instance that defederates another instance:

    1. Their users won’t see any content from comunities of those instances in their “all” feed and also won’t see any posts from users of that instance in the comment sections of any comunity of any instance.
    2. Users of those instance won’t be able to post on their instance.


  • and have your own community – AKA instance

    The distinction between communities and instances is often poorly displayed in many cases which adds to the general confusion I feel. For example, feedit.de describes itself as “Deutschsprachige(German-speaking) Lemmy Community” and their Logo also states “lemmy community”.
    But it’s not a community, it’s an instance. The “subreddits” inside that instance are the communities, so feddit itself shouldn’t be called community to avoid confusion.

    Edit: Of course there’s also more added confusion when we talk about the Fediverse as a whole, where users on /kbin use the terms magazines and articles instead of comunities and posts and they also have different names for likes and dislikes.



  • Well our mouths wouldn’t change just because they are no longer needed the way they were before.
    It would only change if there was a negative effect of having a mouth and teeth like we have now.

    You could say if we don’t need our teeth anymore, they might disappear over time, but that would only occur if having teeth lead to higher death rates and fewer children being born. But we’ve generally come so far with our technology that we’re not really that much dependend on the “survival of the fittest” rule anymore.

    If we didn’t need our teeth and let those people who have tooth decay die from infections instead of treating them with our modern technology, then very very slowly those who had a random mutation that leads to them not having teeth at all actually have a better survivability than those who have teeth. But as we treat them, they have the same chance of reproducing as everyone else.

    You could also argue that it’s better for survivability to have as few body parts on you as possible that you need to provide energy for and those parts that you have being most energy efficient. So it could be that we at least develop smaller mouths when it’s no longer a benefit of having a bigger jaw etc. But this also wouldn’t happen because there is no reason why someone would die of having to spend too much energy on their body nowadays.