The point is the suction; I’m not sure how they’d get decent suction just dumping the waste instead of having a closed second tank.

As I mentioned above, I don’t feel strongly about Bluesky winning, I just don’t like misinformation. (I also have other things I care about more that take up what little free time I have for tech stuff already, so I’m not going to undertake something major just to prove a point.) If there’s really a fundamental problem with AT Proto and how it can be used, Doctorow’s post should have made that explicit.

I did find a (more recent) post that goes into detail about what’s lacking, and I’ve edited my original post accordingly.

Here’s a post on how to set up a relay: https://whtwnd.com/bnewbold.net/entries/Notes on Running a Full-Network atproto Relay (July 2024)

…how is it Bluesky’s responsibility to set up an independent server? If they’re the ones that set up the server, how can it be independent?

Doctorow’s complaint only makes sense as a critique of Bluesky itself if he’s talking about the technical aspects of AT Proto. If what he really means is just “nobody has bothered to actually deploy and maintain a fully separate relay instance”, that’s not a problem with Bluesky, it’s an ecosystem issue that he could help by encouraging people to do that work, rather than discouraging them from learning about the platform.

I honestly don’t have much stake in this fight, I’m just frustrated that, as far as I can tell, Doctorow, an intelligent person with a nontrivial following, appears to be spreading misinformation about what is or isn’t possible with Bluesky.

What is actually missing from AT Proto to be usable in the way Doctorow describes? He writes:

Bluesky lacks the one federated feature that is absolutely necessary for me to trust it: the ability to leave Bluesky and go to another host and continue to talk to the people I’ve entered into community with there. While there are many independently maintained servers that provide services to Bluesky and its users, there is only one Bluesky server. A federation of multiple servers, each a peer to the other, has been on Bluesky’s roadmap for as long as I’ve been following it, but they haven’t (yet) delivered it.

But according to the source code repo, federation features are fully available, including independent servers. There’s even a guide for setting up an independent server: https://atproto.com/guides/self-hosting

Edit: looks like I’m probably not missing anything, and the protocol is fully capable of what Doctorow wants, it just doesn’t have any other large instances yet: https://social.coop/@bnewbold/113420983888441504

Edit 2: I found a post that seems much more honest and informative about the actual limitations of AT Proto. In particular:

Relays cannot talk to Relays. If Bluesky Social, PBC decided to show ads (or do something else you don’t like), it would be very hard for you to switch to a different Relay and still be able to interact with all the other folks who stayed at the Bluesky Social, PBC Relay.

Edit 3: the “more honest” post above actually appears to be misleading as well: https://bsky.app/profile/shreyanjain.net/post/3lbndy6pknc2k

I found something about some recent-ish LG TVs having a default mode that shows static, but I couldn’t find a clear answer on why, and the way to disable it is to enable “Cable DTV”, which seems to suggest that it might actually be trying to get analogue signal by default…?

That noise is horrible; why would someone simulate it rather than just show a blue screen?

No Claude? It’s pretty good in my experience, and I follow someone on twitter who does absolutely wild things with it.

This is the opening of both Blade Runner movies

I mean…okay? My whole point is that “purchase a bunch of music to own forever” and “pay a streaming service to hear a bunch of music once” are totally different use-cases. It’s great that you own music. Good for you. I own some too! But streaming fits my needs better overall.

And all of this is completely beside the point that it’s really not that weird that the cost for two people to stream is higher than the cost for one person to stream.

…sure. Yes. If you own a song, you can listen however many times you want, simultaneously or not.

But streaming services are simply a different value proposition. Listening to an mp3 means either buying all the music you listen to or pirating; it also means having the music stored on your listening device in advance, or streaming from a personal media server. I listen to a lot of music that I haven’t heard before and don’t know if I’ll actually like; I also listen on my phone a fair amount and have a limited amount of storage space for music. For that use-case, streaming is preferable (to me).

Maybe, but how is that different from needing to pay for two separate copies of anything else if two people are using them at the same time in different places?

I’m not a fan of how little the major streaming services (except Tidal) pay artists, but they do all offer bundle packages. Spotify’s pricing is $12 for an individual, $17 for two people, and $20 for a family of up to 6. So it’s only $5 more than the base cost if two people stream simultaneously.

That’s just the name of the device. Unless you’re saying that smart speakers, or whatever you want to call them, are inherently not wholesome, which has some merit.