Europe's censorious behavior has become completely absurd, and reading the Italian docs (as several people here have already shared) doesn't make me more sympathetic. It's a real shame, and I'm disappointed that the dream of an internet free from censorship and manipulation seems to be forgotten by so many here - in favor of political squabbling.
The tax savings (let alone cost of living savings) of avoiding California for most readers of this comment would pay for a professional data removal service 100x.
It has been long predicted that federated models (like Nostr) just degrade into a few providers that monetize in the same way they would if the network was centralized. It's the worst of both worlds between centralization and real decentralization — which (unfortunately to the haters) almost certain requires Byzantine fault tolerant consensus (blockchains).
Nostr doesn't even have the decoupling afforded by what we typically think of when we think of federated networks (email, activitypub, matrix). If you and another party aren't using the same relay, there is 0 way for you to interact. It assumes either you pre-agree on a relay (sticky defaults encouraging centralization) or shotgun messages to many relays (economies of scale encourgaing centralization). The protocol explicitly forbids relays from forwarding to each other.
Nostr is a very simple protocol that could have been invented in essence in 1995. There's a reason it wasn't invented until recently, because it's difficult to build robust protocols with good guarantees about discoverability and reliability with a foundation that is as limited as it is.
This is not true. Read up on the outbox model. I have linked it elsewhere in replies in this thread.
You post to your own preferred relays, as well as to the preferred relays of others who are involved in the conversation, as well as to a couple of global relays for easy discoverability.
These global relays are useful, but are interchangeable and totally replaceable. As soon as you've connected with someone you can retrieve their updates, because you know their preferred relays, and can query them directly.
That's exactly what I'm talking about with having pre-agreed relays. Those relays become preferred as a sticky default, especially with low-sophistication users that don't have organic onboarding paths away from the sticky defaults.
Everyone can announce to the network where they read/write from. Clients can figure out (based on the people you follow) from which relays to get the content.
I've been using it like this for nearly a year. It works
It's a little different to federated networks like GNU Social/Mastadon since the data and the relay are separate. You can post the same data to multiple relays and read from many relays simultaneously. Meaning you aren't tied to picking a single relay with network effects, and although a big relay going offline might cause temporary chaos, it's fairly easy for new ones to be set up and added to clients, without having to explicitly move things like accounts and so on.
Elephant in the room: what about meetings where the purpose is to receive updates, maintain context on project progress, etc.? Yes, sometimes (often!) these meetings can be emails or messages — but sometimes it's important to be able to ask or even hear others ask questions, and to get a sense of how people are feeling directly.
Using meetings to sync on status is an anti-pattern. Questions can be asked in tickets and shared documents. True feelings are rarely shared in large forums anyway and are only reliably shared in private 1:1 sessions.
Everyone having a common understanding of the state of the world is important and not always efficient, or even possible, to do it async. Ideally, everyone would have good response times on messages and emails, always write clearly, but this is the real world, and you can't guarantee that.
Often, tickets bounce back and forth between people for weeks when a quick meeting will answer things quickly. Sometimes this is best to happen in Status meetings IMO.
> Elephant in the room: what about meetings where the purpose is to receive updates, maintain context on project progress, etc.? Yes, sometimes (often!) these meetings can be emails or messages — but sometimes it's important to be able to ask or even hear others ask questions, and to get a sense of how people are feeling directly.
No, there are none. Whoever does those needs to check their fucking ego and just send an email/update md file like a normal human.
At a previous team, our ceo would send out a weekly 5 minute “catch up” video. This covered pretty much everything you needed to know in our company, it saved so many hours, until people complained it could be a message, and then people couldn’t find the message in the other updates and eventually it became a bimonthly hour long meeting for 60 people as they always do!
It is not surprising nor particularly novel. But consider the people upvoting this are supporting a sensationalistic and dishonest Jacobin article right now. Of course it doesn't make sense.
Given the mountain of evidence for Wikipedia's left wing bias[1][2][3][4], it seems something ought to change, but hard to answer "how?"
I expect to receive many downvotes for this, despite providing high-quality and authoritative sources. Which is not unlike what happens on Wikipedia :)
The mountain of evidence you supplied is just evidence that republicans more often than not are involved in unsavory things. Hence the change you see with the think tanks, because they generally do not make the news in the same way that a pedophile politician does. Neutrality is telling the truth, not saying nice things about “both sides”.
Wikipedia is a global resource, edited by educated—often academic—people all over the world. Why would anyone expect it to conform to the US idea of what is left and right? For most of Europe the American Democrats are to the right of their mainstream right-wing parties.
There is no bias to the left. The USA has shifted so far to the right that balance now looks leftist.
There is huge bias to the left. Wikipedia outright bans right wing sources from being used as citations, including non-US sources like the Daily Mail, so it's not true that it's something to do with US bias.
This isn't due to a quality problem. Daily Mail articles are usually highly accurate and they publish voluminously. It's because leftists on Wikipedia ban conservatives as part of their relentless ideological war, as they do in every other context.
> Daily Mail articles are usually highly accurate ...
Six decades of personal exposure to The Daily Mail and UK tabloid gutter press says otherwise.
Leaving aside its questionable history as a paper founded by an admirer of Mussolini and a supporter of Nazi Germany, its questionable present having remained in ownership by family within which the apples remained firmly attached to the tree, The Daily Heil has a business model predicated upon clickbait, outrage, deliberately misleading and emotionally loaded falsehoods and the entire gantlet of fake news predating modern social media, mobile devices, the world wide web, and the internet.
eg: Woman, 63, 'becomes PREGNANT in the mouth' with baby squid after eating calamari (2012)
Congrats on being an excellent example of why leftists should never be allowed anywhere near anything important, especially not Wikipedia.
You could have cited ANY story from the long history of the Daily Mail to demonstrate some kind of inaccuracy. It would have been only a single data point and not that useful, but you could have done it. But like always with this claim by the left, you picked a story that is fully accurate. In fact it's just a retelling of a medical case report written by doctors:
There's nothing inaccurate in the Daily Mail's coverage of this story.
Instead:
- You reacted to the headline for dumb aesthetic reasons
- You made assumptions instead of checking
- You engaged in nonsensical ad hominem attacks. The New York Times famously ran interference for Stalin. Do you consider that questionable history to disqualify all NYT coverage for Wikipedia too?
Your response is a perfect encapsulation of the problem that Wikipedians have. Like all leftists you aren't actually concerned about accuracy, you just hate any news source not controlled by your ideological allies, and want to censor them all out of existence.
Considering the right-wing mainstreams such ideas like holocaust denial, white replacement theory, that the civil war was fought about anything other than slavery, that immigrants secretly steal and eat household pets, etc., it quickly becomes apparent that reality has a left-wing bias.
Either that, or the mainstream right wing is much closer to the far right than they'd ever admit (and that they get pissed when people call them out on it).
I haven't found this to be the case. I check both regularly and much of the "science" that has engagement on Bluesky is thinly-veiled political slop earning engagement as a form of tacit "resistance". It's paper thin (and even the comments here on HN demonstrate a bit of this effect).
X downranks links in general, unfortunately, so unless the research is reformatted for X (rare) it won't get much engagement.
reply