go1dfish

go1dfish wrote

Down to 15$ a month now.

3 $5 VMs.

One for the indexer, one for notabug.io and one for nab.cx

Each has its own independent copy of the db, both sites share the same indexer but are otherwise independent and redundant.

Moved from redis as a backend to lmdb have some ideas to potentially take things even further as well.

1

go1dfish wrote

Yes and no, a lot of open source happens because the marginal cost of releasing software you've already built for your own purposes is pretty low, and there is potential to receive value back in the form of patches and testing.

This makes the model here a bit different than the traditional "tragedy of the commons." one where the tragedy is usually rather minimal; but as noted above the lack of scarcity in the resulting good is what helps to achieve this.

As quoted in the article:

The vast majority of open source software—particularly as it relates to the web—is funded through companies sponsoring developers to work on issues that matter to those companies

1

go1dfish wrote

Fair enough, and this is why mod tools are the next priority after optimization.

I don't want people to have to encounter content or people they aren't interested in, they should have the ability to be fully in control of their own experience.

0

go1dfish wrote (edited )

Currently it's running on a single 99$/month server working on optimizations to reduce the requirements, it's already possible to run a non-indexing mirror at closer to that cost and after the next round of optimizations it should make running an indexer much less resource intensive as well. The site started on a $10/mo shared hosting but did outgrow that pretty quickly mostly as a result of a memory leak in a dependent package that has now been tracked down.

It's likely going to be a more intensive service in general due to its realtime/chat/msg oriented approach; but reducing the cost of contributing to the health of the network is one of my primary goals; even if the overall costs end up higher, they can be more evenly distributed among volunteers.

Edit: is raddle prepared to scale in the event of significant growth? Because that's been another priority of mine as I see it as the main failure of Voat leading to the culture as it exists there today. NAB is set up to scale horizontally to a point where it could eventually support reddit level traffic.

−1

go1dfish wrote

Yep, working towards that gotten a bit sidetracked with optimization but it's all related.

Doing distributed/layered/opt-in moderation has interesting performance challenges but I'm getting pretty close to having a viable solution that will allow me to focus back on feature development.

With the most important feature development being fleshing out the moderation model to reach and exceed parity with reddit.

0

Reply to comment by go1dfish in Memelord copyright by ziq

go1dfish wrote

What world do you live in where capitalism protects limited resources?

I didn't suggest that it did; only that property rights reduces conflict over scarce resources.

Further, much of the environmental exploitation; especially as it relates to oil resources has occurred via government intervention and violence; not property rights in the general sense.

−1

Reply to comment by go1dfish in Memelord copyright by ziq

go1dfish wrote

When you have finite resources and people wanting to use them in different ways it is not possible to satisfy the desires of all people.

Without some system of determining who can do conflicting things with finite resources conflict is unavoidable.

0

Reply to comment by go1dfish in Memelord copyright by ziq

go1dfish wrote

Many AnCaps/Libertarians/Voluntarists view property rights as a means of reducing conflict over scarce resources.

Some people, myself included don't see shared information as particularly scarce. Further; without some authoritative entity/State property rights become difficult to enforce because they are essentially an artificial construction.

If you want to keep exclusive control of information; keep it secret. Otherwise it becomes quite difficult to control without some massive intimidation scheme.

0

Reply to comment by go1dfish in Memelord copyright by ziq

go1dfish wrote

There is no conflict in believing in private property rights while speaking out against the behaviors of people and how they use their property. I don't advocate State action or violence against any corporate censorship despite my vocal opposition to how pronounced it has become.

I identify as a voluntarist because I'm not primarily focused in the support of capitalism or even property rights except insofar as they are a means of reducing conflict over scarce resources.

The core of my ideology is that all interactions between people should be voluntary and without coercion. At certain monopolistic extremes private property rights can be destructive to these ends as well and represent a de-facto state.

0

go1dfish wrote (edited )

"treating people differently based on their race" is an accurate description of criticizing someone for "cultural appropriation" based on their race.

In the case of Gwen stefani "punching up" fits sure.

But "treating people differently based on their race" is a description that also fits discrimination against minorities and I don't think "punching up" fits there.

So "punching up" is not a good term to cover the general idea of "treating people differently based on their race".

−6

go1dfish wrote

When a rich blonde girl takes from another culture, making millions from it in the process

Does the money matter? Or is such appropriation bad if a poor blonde girl identifies with and adopts a foreign culture without profit motive?

I can certainly agree that commercializing religious culture is a pretty shitty thing to do.

But I have trouble characterizing it as stealing. Ideas don't have marginal costs they are capable of spreading without limit. For the same reason that piracy is not stealing in the same sense as taking a physical possession; neither is it stealing to adopt and spread the ideas of others.

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.

−2