md_ wrote

Do you use it, then?

I was looking into hosting my own instance. Sharing photos from trips was the first time that I missed social media. But Pixelfed looks complicated to set up.

If someone made a much lighter and simpler to self-host federated image sharing software (eg database-less, limited Javascript use, etc), I would prefer it over existing solutions.


md_ wrote

I am fortunate enough to be studying something I like, but I wish I had the option for a minor in Computer Science or programming more specifically.

University takes way too much time from my life, to the extend that I only do things I enjoy, like reading literature or learning new languages if it is part of my degree (otherwise it would have to take time away from working to fund being a student, or time from studying). I want to be able to make more substantial contributions to Libre Software, so any chance to learn how to program (principles, and popular languages in libre software development like Python and C++) would be very welcome, but my uni doesn't have anything like that.


md_ wrote (edited )

And it's kind of our job to curate

I don't know why there's this sense of obligation. People are free to choose what they read and what they skip. I don't read all posts that show up in my RSS reader for example.

I understand that I have a very different use for forums with link posts than other people, and as long as /new is kept, I am not that affected by the changes (other than having to see people get hurt by the psychological effects of being rated by their peers, which makes me skip coming to Raddle for a week at a time, because it's hard to watch).

But yeah, for me Raddle, and Reddit in the past, are discussion boards. From time to time you discover a new blog someone links in a forum post, but that's not the main function of a forum imv. If curating went away, the downvote anxiety attacks would go away, and discussions will improve.


md_ wrote

It already does that and when people get downvoted, they get anxiety. I've seen it happen countless times. If the system upvotes everyone, that won't be a problem.

There's for sure some extra psychological effect caused by seeing negative numbers, but I'm pretty sure that it would persist even if only positive numbers are used.

It's not what postmill is tho, the software is a link aggregator.

Postmill has text-posts (even links are text posts with a featured external link), and threaded discussions. Non-chronological ordering of forum threads is a relatively new idea, but it doesn't radically depart from what we generally call a forum board.

At least 95% of people. Most people that come here don't even comment or even make an account, they're only here for the articles.

I don't think any usability will be taken away from those people if externally-imposed curation goes away.


md_ wrote

But what if you want to read articles for months or years ago?

Maybe indexing by month/arbitrary time period would be a good feature request then. /Top is only incidentally covering that need, it's not why it exists.

I'd like the system to reward engagement

I don't think that Raddle should introduce a system of psychological conditioning.

If it didn't have voting altogether it would just be a regular message board

That's a positive, in my book.

and that's not why people come here

Not everyone, surely.


md_ wrote

I don't like the idea of someone else curating my reading, be it other people, or a machine. I just go for /new all the time.

In addition, it seems that there's a tendency in a lot of people to get too invested on scores like that, creating a lot of personal strife for them.

So imv, post scoring is useless, and it seems to upset people. That's (ironically) -2 for post scoring. What are the upsides of keeping it?


md_ wrote

Culture shapes language, and language shapes culture. Often it’s like the proverbial chicken and egg; impossible to discern what came first.

The first claim is overwhelmingly more true than the second, so it's quite easy to discern what came first, but OK, I get their point.

I do agree with the observation that a lot of online politics, including Raddle btw, are presented with a US audience in mind, even when non-US-based activists are the ones writing about them.

That's not necessarily a language issue, as I've seen many authors writing in languages other than English, in places definitely outside of the Anglosphere, who are adopting US political analyses without any modifications to make them work in the local context. Racism (which they mention) is one such case. Racism works different elsewhere, and every time I hear a Levantine progressive identify (with the intend of recognising their privileges) "as a white man", I cringe. "No, you are not enjoying white privilege, you are enjoying dominant-ethnicity privilege. There are people with much fairer skin than you who work in almost slave-labour conditions for you to have your quality of life. You picked the wrong model to understand racism in this region, and that obscures part of the reality. "

Of course writing in a register that is accessible to people who are not familiar with the latest coinages of niche online communities is also important. I've seen English texts geared towards international audiences that were full of Germanisms and other region-specific cultural references and idioms that were impossible to follow as well. Picking the correct register matters, and there's a lot to be said about activist communities linguistic practices.


md_ wrote

In general, I'd say yeah, municipal-level politics, it can meaningful to participate (voting for council members, not for mayor), but I also haven't done it yet, because there wasn't a non-party affiliated list with ideas worth supporting yet, and running an electoral campaign for the municipal council is at this point not the priority of the far-left milieu in my town.


md_ wrote

Another vote for Kdenlive. It's easy enough to use while having some of the features the other casual-user-oriented ones do not have.

Hyperbola probably has a recent enough version of Kdenlive, but Trisquel is probably on an old version, so not recommended. The rendering will be slow on an X200 unfortunately. I think there's no video encoding hardware acceleration on the GMA 4500MHD Intel Graphics chip it uses, so all the work will be done by the CPU.

A great feature of the Kdenlive in recent versions though, is the ability to work with "proxy clips". So you can make all the editing on low-resolution versions of the clips, and then switch to the full quality source files only for the export. It makes the editing process more tolerable on weaker computers.


md_ wrote

Thanks. Let's see

The web is an open platform, not a corporate platform.

Sure. But encouraging HTTPS is not going against openness, nor it is an example of Google's corporate dominance on the web (real examples exist, this is not one of them)

Also, if Google succeeds, it will make a lot of the web's history inaccessible.

That's an outright lie.

People put stuff on the web precisely so it would be preserved over time.

The web doesn't have this magical property, people have to go and make backups to keep things online. Linkrot exists, and it is unrelated to HTTPS.

The web is a social agreement not to break things. It's served us for 25 years.

Actually, that's unfortunately not the case. The internet was broken already. Not by HTTPS though. It was broken by the rise of the "web application", the proliferation of single-page JS applications, of EME, of closed/proprietary protocols, and of our tendency to prefer the easiness of centralised webservers.

I don't want to give it up because a bunch of nerds at Google think they know best.

I don't know what's the problem with nerds, but Google employees didn't invent HTTPS or were the first to realise how important it is. If anyone made HTTPS their priority, is EFF and Mozilla.

Keeping the web running simple is as important as net neutrality.

In this whole section, other than simply saying "HTTP is simple, HTTPS is complicated" as an axiom, no argument was presented to justify this.

They believe they have the power

They do have power, and they do abuse it often. Discouraging HTTP is not an example of abuse.

Many of the sites they will label as "not secure" don't ask the user for any information.

HTTPS is not just for privacy, it is also for integrity. Non-encrypted transport is open to manipulation.

Also, sometimes the privacy concerns do not arise from people eavesdropping on the information you submit, but also from thirdparties knowing what exactly you are reading.

but fail to mention that they can do it in the browser, even if you use a "secure" protocol

This statement is "a sleight of hand". It's a misdirection and it's not an argument against HTTPS.

Of course the browser controls website rendering. And that's a reason why people should not use Chrome. But the disprivileging of HTTP-only sites on Chrome is not related, and on its own it's positive.

yet still have valuable ideas and must be preserved.

Websites will not die because of HTTP being discouraged. Websites die for other reasons.

It's like a massive book burning, at a much bigger scale than ever done before.

Wow. The argumentation gets poorer and poorer as this goes on. That's an outright lie again.

Why force people to do it? This suggests that the main benefit is for Google, not for people who own the content.

Wow again.

If it were such a pressing problem we'd do it because we want to, not because we're being forced to.

Are you sure we want to apply that argument to other issues on the web then?

Because this argument will come in favour of web centralisation, in favour of Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon etc. People like them, therefore they must be good.

For me, the amount of work is prohibitive, even with Let's Encrypt, which people have told me about a huge number of times.

Honestly, just start with that, because the other excuses of an argument are doing you a disservice.

You didn't future proof your work, and you don't want to go back and retrofix everything. That's OK. Your stuff will not go away. People will discouraged of visiting them, and that's also OK.

I don't think anyone has the right to change the web so they no longer work.

Discouraging HTTP is not changing the web. It means that Chrome will have saner default settings. Mozilla should have done this first, imo.