I know that is bs because I haven’t been there in days and I probably added 100 visits a day to their stats. So they’re at least a couple hundred shy.

The article mentions 55.31 million daily visits (average). You decreased their stats by 0.00018%. Even if all new active lemmy users had your level of activity, the other site would still return to normal. There are just so many other users.

I know that I am not back. And I won’t be back, and I think a lot of people are staying away as well. That the traffic is now normal seems a bit sketchy.

I’m afraid that’s just bubble bias. Most people just don’t care or haven’t found a viable alternative yet. These +43k active users on Lemmy are huge for Lemmy, but not even a scratch for the other site.

After the initial exodus at the start of this month, you could see more and more comments demanding returning to business as usual.

there’s a bug where voting causes all of them to become uncollapsed at once.

Yes: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy-ui/issues/1510

Thanks for linking! It is ‘closed as completed’, but I still get it every time?

Utopia (from Ουτοπία) is an impossible Vision of the future, while Evtopia (from Ευτοπία) is the best possible Vision.

Interesting. I never heard of Evtopia, and I also did not understand Utopia as necessarily impossible. Could be possible or impossible, depends on context.

• https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/utopia
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia#Etymology_and_history

I also don’t think being unreachable is necessarily a bad thing. Consider an ‘Ideal’. Although some ideals may never be fully actualized, they are seen as something good and worth pursuing nevertheless.

But mostly, I don’t think the opinions of proponents or opponents of this idea are swayed by wether we call it Utopia or Evtopia. If anything, using the more common term makes it more relatable.

https://joinfediverse.wiki/What_is_Lemmy%3F

You’d think if it was all basic biology we would just have a unique gender for every one wouldn’t you?

Nothing in biology is exactly identical between individuums. A common eye color is brown, although there are as many shades of brown as there are people.

It is just practical and how language, or even perception works, that we tend to categorize similarities, and strongly favor common occurrances over outliers.

the doctor is describing your phenotypic sex based on observable characteristics.

Your doctor is assigning you a gender.

Maybe you two aren’t even disagreeing?

I’d say the doctor tries to assign the new born into male or female according to biological sex, and gender is inferred from that.

He calls you either a boy or a girl based on your genital configuration

Yes, that’s what I mean. A two-step process. First, biological expression is assessed. Next, based on #1, social gender is inferred.

Basically, do you identify as your birth gender (not sex, gender and sex are different)?

The additional explanation actually confused me. Let’s compare the two sentences:

• A) Basically, do you identify as your birth gender?

• B) Basically, do you identify as your birth sex?

I assume biological sex can be identified by looking at your body as a new born baby, and gender is usually inferred accordingly. So I would assume new borns are being assigned a gender which mathes their biology, although they probably don’t have any opinions themselves on the topic.

Anyways, what’s the difference between A and B? I feel you felt it was important to point it out, and I just can’t see any.

If you buy local, and go with the seasons, I’d argue it is rather hard to not have all three (cheap, delicious, healthy) at the same time.

You won’t have to rely on produce which is optimized for long transports but can tap into fresh, original flavors. Ripe fruits and vegetables from the fields, harvested just this morning. And because they all ripen now, quality maximizes when prize minimizes.

Sorry for being unclear. What I meant is:

These actors play nice until they are too big to ignore [as a presence in the fediverse].

When they run the most and the biggest popular communities on their instances, do most of the development, offer the best tools and services in the fediverse, they have become too big to ignore.

If they then start playing dirty, it is too late to defederate them. They will play dirty. Let’s not make ourselves dependent.

why would I want to keep in contact with the “head in the sand” people

Forget contacts. Imagine Meta has

• poured way more developing hours in their fork than the FOSS community ever could
• the most effective and easy to use mod tools
• the best search tools for finding communities, topics and everything else (by a margin)
• free instance hosting
• every major wish list feature implemented
• a working feed with endless content you actually find interesting
• a vibrant community for every niche interest you might have
• advanced development so much that it feels a couple versions ahead

The more money they throw at this, the more people will feel tempted to join or at least try their service. It offers objective benefits. It would feel like using lemmy 0.09 when others already enjoy 0.18.

There’s nothing wrong with Lemmy’s user interface design.

The first step is a UX disaster: https://join-lemmy.org/

Only 2 clicks / pages down the road you can start registering an account, and you don’t see what the experience might be before that. Instead, you’re being presented tech talk about servers.

You might argue it’s not actually lemmy but just the landing page. I argue, it’s so good at being a scarecrow, most people visiting lemmy haven’t seen anything else except for that page.

The inner lemmy is pretty fine, I agree. Some parts are still confusing. For example, most people will not figure out they can search for content from within a specific community by carefully configuring the drop downs in the general search form. Most will look for the search directly attached to the community.

If Meta plays dirty, defederate them then. Now is just too premature.

These actors play nice until they are too big to ignore. If you let them gain that much ground, it’s too late to isolate them without doing even more harm to your own network.

Also Meta is not a startup with unknown reputation. Meta plays dirty, that’s a given.

See (and please help if you can with)

• A way to link posts across instances #3259
• [Bug]: local links #3261

It’s the first and only lemmy app working on my old 2015 android phone.

Great to have backwards compatible options. I also like it :)

They are, I get results. My worry is they are not aggregated/unified. Some lemmy instances don’t have ‘lemmy’ in their name, and I’m not sure if they would show up in a search “X + lemmy”.

Ok, but you can only do that if they already joined the fediverse. I replied to “the powers that be must never be allowed to join the fediverse”. It’s also questionable if everyone will block them.

The article is not about single persons who might be trolls or whatever to qualify as a “bad guy”. But about megacorporations like Meta.

Yes, sorry for being unclear. I meant the bad ‘guy’ Meta. Maybe continuing with ‘entity’ would have been better:

we can be sure some entities will join

ensure only good entities enter

The best way to deal with them is-in my opinion-to not cooperate and defederate them as soon as they start to enter.

I tend to agree. Still quite new to the topic.

I’m worried this will not be enough in the long run.

Imagine Meta provides more original content, a higher user base, more engagement, more activity. That alone would make it interesting for many other users, further increasing their relative attractivity.

Additionally, they could invest in the codebase, and implement some of the community’s dream features, some nice mod tools, search engine discoverability and whatnot. On a fork which lives on their instances, of course. Services which work if you federate with them.

They have the resources to rase the stakes higher and higher. The incentives are objective, real, advantages for users, communitites, mods and admins. Isn’t it only a question of time / stake height until significant parts of the fediverse choose to cooperate for various reasons?

We should be honest and ensure people join the Fediverse because they share some of the values behind it.

How could that be done? Anyone with the resources can host an instance, and there are plenty of instances with a low entry bar.

If the fediverse grows enough, we can be sure some entities will join not because they share our values, but because they see our value.

I don’t see how we could prevent that or ensure only good guys enter. The fediverse is open by design.