lvxferre

Memory is a funny thing. People around me often highlight that I remember oddly specific stuff, but I forget what they make a huge deal of.

So for example, I do remember the name of the girl of my first kiss. And her face, including her ears. Her birthday too, although that's because it's close to mine.

I also remember the weird smell of the nurse who took care of my sister when sis was internalised, 30 years ago. (I was 9 back then; now I know the smell is disinfectant). I also remember the specific pitch of my neighbour's dog "yuuuunnn~", as he brought what-used-to-be-a-ball through the outer fence of his home, so I could throw to him. (I had dogs back then, but neither was into playing as much as that good boy.)

I also remember my grandpa completely drunk, but taking care of me, when I was 6. And my grandma scolding him for that. Or the toy grandma gave me, a coin that flipped as if it was "magic", as it went through a house-like thing. (It was themed after Ducktales.)

However I'd be lying if I said I remember the face of my father, even if I lived with him until he died (I was 18). I also tend to forget the specific date of my nephew's birthday, even if I care a lot about him. I'm also always pausing to remember how many tablespoons of coffee I need to add to the machine, for a specific amount of coffee.

When something similar happened in the UK, it was pretty much exclusively smaller/niche forums, run by volunteers and donations, that went offline.

[Warning, IANAL] I am really not sure if the experience is transposable for two reasons:

1. UK follows Saxon tribal law, while Brazil follows Roman civil law. I am not sure but I believe the former requires both sides to dig up precedents, and that puts a heavier burden on the smaller side of a legal litigation. While in the later, if you show "ackshyually in that older case the defendant was deemed guilty", all the judge will say is "so? What is written is what matters; if the defendant violated the law or not.".
2. The Americas in general are notorious for sloppy law enforcement. Specially Brazil. Doubly so when both parties are random nobodies.

So there's still a huge room for smaller forums to survive, or even thrive. It all depends on how the STF enforces it. For example it might take into account that a team of volunteers has less liability because their ability to remove random junk from the internet is lower than some megacorpo from the middle of nowhere.

Additionally, it might be possible the legislative screeches at the judiciary, and releases some additional law that does practically the same as that article 19, except it doesn't leave room for the judiciary to claim it's unconstitutional. Because, like, as I said the judiciary is a bit too powerful, but the other powers still can fight back, specially the legislative.

For context:

There's an older law called Marco Civil da Internet (roughly "internet civil framework"), from 2014. The Article 19 of that law boils down to "if a third party posts content that violates the law in an internet service, the service provider isn't legally responsible, unless there's a specific judicial order telling it to remove it."

So. The new law gets rid of that article, claiming it's unconstitutional. In effect, this means service providers (mostly social media) need to proactively remove illegal content, even without judicial order.

I kind of like the direction this is going, but it raises three concerns:

1. False positives becoming more common.
2. The burden will be considerably bigger for smaller platforms than bigger ones.
3. It gives the STF yet another tool for vendetta. The judiciary is already a bit too strong in comparison with the other two powers, and this decision only feeds the beast further.

On a lighter side, regardless of #2, I predict a lower impact in the Fediverse than in centralised social media.

I like how Stardew Valley has a calendar and seasons, but I don't like how it keeps track of the year. It makes my inner min-maxer go like, "I need to complete the CC before year 1 ends!!!!", and I grind instead of enjoying the game. It also feels off to see the kids never growing up.

Yellowcake, sponge... lemon flavoured sponge cake?

Kent Overstreet, Bcachefs maintainer. There's new drama going on between him and Torvalds.

Perhaps. I can't rule out completely the possibility of Lemmy stagnating. In that case as PieFed development progresses, and the feature gap becomes wide, more and more instances shift from one to another. I do think however the Lemmy devs won't simply see their software being replaced without "fighting back" (in a good way).

A third possibility would be specialisation - PieFed and Lemmy still coexisting, but taking different niches.

We need a cosmological law dictating harmful to humans = boring-looking. I mean, it isn't just plutonium, look at uranium yellowcake! It's lemon flavouring!

There's always some silver lining.

I think this increased adoption of PieFed might even benefit instances sticking to Lemmy; Lemmy development will likely speed up, to avoid making Lemmy seem "obsolete" in comparison with PieFed.

Yeah, they didn't propose how those sets of calls appear; only that they're there, in other primates. So no, you aren't missing it.

What I'm going to say is just a guess from my part. Those sets would appear like this:

1. Simple call, conveying some simple info (for example: ook = "threat")
2. Call gets repeated to ensure others got the message. (for example: ook ook ook = "threat, threat, threat")
3. The number of repetitions gets associated with some additional info. (for example: ook ook = small threat, ook ook ook = big threat).
4. The repetitions get some rhythm structure, to ensure others got the whole thing.

On #4 you already got a set. But all steps are on their own advantageous for the survival of the group.

However, once you got through all those steps, a problem appears: since the set itself is conveying info, how to ensure the info is not missed? Then you go back to #2, repeating the whole set to ensure others got the message.

Glad you found it; depending on the app the interface might be a bit different.

It's showing it already for me!

It’s absolutely civil behavior

Nah. You're being clearly belittling through the whole thread. Too eager to voice your own opinion, but un-eager to dialogue.

[Before someone distorts the above, be aware plenty communists also do this sometimes. Including myself.]

I was asked for MY definition of it. And I gave it.

What you did is perhaps easier to see from the other side. Pretend you asked a communist their definition of communism, and they answered one of those two things:

1. "Communism is a post-socialism system, where class hierarchy ceased to exist, acc. to Marxist theory".
2. "Communism is a system that solves all plagues of capitalism, re-enabling freedom for the population, so you don't need a Luigi Mangione dirtying his hands."

#1 is giving you a definition. #2 isn't. What you did there was way closer to #2 than to #1.

And by the context it's clear Nay asked for your equivalent of #1 - because it's known communists and non-communists use the word "communism" to refer to different things.

I speak on authority of my opinions of things because I get to do that.

Someone's opinions can lead them to adopt one or another definition, but the definition itself is not an opinion; they're two different cans of worms. One should not be misrepresented as the other.