I think the goal should be slow continuous growth. It’s a social media tool and that requires enough engaged users so it doesn’t feel dead. As you pointed out, we’re not there yet. I also think a huge jump in new users would be detrimental. Without central leadership of traffic and hardware Lemmy requires longer to respond to changes in user load. Nothing would be more detrimental to adding long term engaged users than an influx of new users that caused infrastructure overloading.

We’re very spoiled with reliability these days. People are not interested in unreliable access to their doom scrolling (myself included, unfortunately).

Solid comic!

I grow crystals all day. I have a cool idea for a video game so I’ve been learning Godot recently too.

What does this mean? Cameras? Machines that can identify things via images?

This honestly reads like a bad commercial you’d hear on the radio.

Okay, then what is the process for creating good policy?

Building a broad coalition without policy concessions was a waste of time? You’re going to have a tough time convincing me of that point.

That doesn’t really have the same rigidity. There would be no guarantee for others that it would remain available to them as long as they adhere to those principles.

Said another way, a bad faith actor could create a patent and make it available to FOS developers, but then turn around and sell that patent to someone who will charge those same developers.

I suppose you could have a third legally binding document that stipulates the terms of use, but kinda wish it was just handled under the patent.

Might be a stupid question, but I’d there a GNU license equivalent to patents? Could you patent something that could be used for free, but not used by a company in a for-profit matter?

Are there any foundations that distribute donations to various FOSS projects?

I mean, even with a union, if a company crumbles the laborers are out of a job.

I do now! Hi friend!

Hard to tell if this is a proposal to fight over hardware or an offer for free stuff.

I choose to believe the former because it makes me chuckle more.

What is the easiest way to look that information up?

I think you two are speaking about different steps in this hypothetical transition. You are talking about the long term goal, the other person was talking about the transition from now to the long term scenario. There is very real danger that the power vacuum left by the x-billionaires could be gobbled up by a small group of people. This cannot be dismissed even if we all agree on the end goal.

Secondary critique, set the wealth cap in relation to some other moving metric. I think a multiple of minimum wage would be great, give incentive for the wealthy to increase minimum wage to achieve a higher cap.

Personally I think the biggest hurdle will be moderation and defederation as it pertains to the first amendment. I believe there was already a supreme Court case where blocking a user on Twitter (from an official govt account) was deemed unconstitutional. This precedent might mean a govt instance is not allowed to defederate with any other server unless they defederate with all(?) This is pure speculation on my part, but I can guarantee it would go to the courts.

(Also, Samsung makes their own chips.)

Example holds up better with Google (for Pixel line).

I agree that planting trees is generally good, but doing so can’t sequester the amount of carbon released by humans since the start of the industrial revolution. We need other avenues to do that. If we returned forests back to how they were 100,000 years ago (untouched by modern humans) the new trees that would grow wouldn’t be able to soak up the CO2 released. Returning the forests to that state with the current world population isn’t feasible either as we need some of that land for agriculture.

I get your sentiment, but we’re beyond a ‘plant trees’ solution.

Semiconductors are used for transistors because they give us the ability to electrically control whether they conduct or resist electrical current. I don’t know what mechanism you’d use to do that with superconductors. I agree you don’t ‘have’ to have resistance in order to achieve this functionality, but at this time semiconductors or mechanical relays are the only ways we have to do that. My focus is not in semiconductor / IC design either so I may by way off base, but I don’t know of a mechanism that would allow superconductors to function as transistors (or “electrically controlled electrical connections”), but I really hope I’m wrong!

Really appreciate the write up! I didn’t know the computing power required!

Another stupid question (if you don’t mind) - adding superconductors to GPUs doesn’t really se like it would make a huge difference on the heat generation. Sure, some of the heat generated is through trace resistance, but the overwhelming majority is the switching losses of the transistors which will not be effected by superconductor technology. Are we assuming these superconductors will be able to replace semiconductors too? Where are these CPU/GPU efficiencies coming from?

Stupid question probably - is computing power what is holding back general AI? I’ve not heard that.