I don't hate apple. Especially from a privacy record, they actually have a far superior history than essentially every other hardware manufacturer out there.

I think they're overpriced and I don't agree with some of their design decisions, and in general feel like they could give the consumer more control over things, which is why I don't personally have an iPhone or iPad etc., I use them at work and have nothing against them in general)

I've recently found out about https://search.marginalia.nu and want to start using it.

Nostr does some interesting things! What I mentioned here is actually just the identity part of what I think could be a significantly improved version of the fediverse. I have ideas on how to support subreddit style communities and decentralized moderation and things like that that make the whole idea a bit different from nostr.

Yeah, I disagree with that part as well. I think it's fine for servers to store the content and provide endpoints for specific queries/sorts, and expecting the clients to have all the posts is a tad extreme.

In this case, yes the data needs to live somewhere, but that's the nature of having data be retrievable.

I agree with this take, and recently I actually read this article that criticizes how server centric fedi is as a whole. If it's hard and expensive for a layperson to self host, but you need to have an account associated with a specific server, then you're going to end up with a system where you're under the whims of a instance owner still. Not to mention the whole pick a server step severely hurts our adoption rates.

I like the idea of having an account just being a public and private key pair. Theoretically you could make one client side, use it to sign your messages, and servers could verify the signature and distribute your post without needing to have an explicit account for you. You could send every message to a random instance and it'd still work. You wouldn't have to worry about links to the "wrong instance" and you wouldn't have to attach your identity to a instance that might shut down or be bought by a bad person. The server would be essentially irrelevant.

For matrix specifically, I recommend fluffy chat on mobile and cinny for web/desktop. Most notably, they both support the not-yet-official spec on custom emojis and stickers, which I think is important for any slack-like.

For the server (since you want to self host), you'd probably want to do Synapse - it supports not being federated as well as SSO. Also it wasn't mentioned by mp3, but xmpp is another protocol that's used by many large companies for internal chat systems as well.

Mbin?

Honestly, these use cases all sound very cool, but I'm highly concerned about the idea of federating information that could effectively tie you to your physical location with a bunch of random servers. Even if all they see is a pseudonymous activitypub id.

To answer honestly, it's because the first sentence only uses common and easy to spell words.

I honestly think that philosophy is fine. Before the major social media sites all came about, the Internet was filled with much smaller communities that didn't need to be profitable or scalable - they could be run by an individual as a hobby project. I think returning to that (possibly with the use of federation so these small communities still have a good amount of content) could keep things free, ad free, and privacy conscious

Housing prices increase faster than inflation. Why do you think that is? Certainly not because housing is seen as an investment vehicle where corporations buy as much as they can just to rent out, increasing the demand and therefore price of housing beyond what the market rate would have otherwise been.

I think it's clear that landlords are making money (and even if they're not, they're at least gaining equity which will eventually make the whole thing profitable), with most of that profit coming from the mere act of owning the property and withholding it from those who need it in order to survive unless they pay - which is inherently coercive in nature, and a fork of violence against the working class performed by the owning class. Sure, there's a nominal amount of effort fees and effort, and I'm not going to knock property management, since that is actual work, but landlords primarily get their money from rent seeking (that is, however much they charge beyond their expenses).

I think the US would be a massively better place to live in if we massively taxed housing owned by corporations, or at least any properties owned by a single entity surpassing 1 or 2. The goal is to make it not profitable and not appealing as an investment, such that black rock et al see fit to unload most of all of their properties. The housing prices would and should crash, and finally be affordable again. The government might even buy a lot of them up and expand our socialized housing. Sure that last point might not be "fair" to existing home owners, but consider they are hy definition already well off enough to afford their own home and bought their homes during the time when it was still seen as an "investment" that by definition means it comes with some amount of risk. At least going forward, housing would no longer be a vehicle for investment and well on its way to becoming a human right, like it should be.

Good point, I guess we should just let the homes remain empty and the homeless on the streets?

I get that having your home squatted in sucks, and if you were only out for a week long vacation and come back to a break in then you have my sympathy, but the message here is ultimately pointing out that houses have been commodified and turned into vehicles for investing by the rich, rather than a right like they should be. We have more empty homes than homeless people, and that simply isn't just.

The "paradox of tolerance" has never legitimately stumped anyone. The initial act of intolerance broke the social contract, thus removing their right to tolerance themselves.

You've set up a false dichotomy. There are reasons to dislike AI besides capitalist propaganda. For example, moral concerns with training on data without explicit approval

Gotcha. In that case I've already set that all up in sonarr/radarr directly, using shared docker volumes.

I never heard of those tools, but I have a jellyfin server. By "support" for jellyfin, does that mean it has like a plugin or something to request media from within jellyfin?

Ngl calling nginx a contraction of "popular https server" is kinda wild

Yes it does. I even host a forgejo instance where you can only login via SSO and it works perfectly!

Edit: sorry, got my wires crossed with idp and SSO. But yes, forgejo can also act as an idp.

Funkwhale seems really interesting and I'd love to be able to listen to music without relying on a company's servers and getting tracked, and not being locked into that corporation's apps, but music specifically is just so hard to justify switching. I use YT music and it has access to soooo much music, and the recommendation algorithms are useful in letting me discover new music. There's just now way I'd be able to transition from something with effectively access to all music in existence to something with none. I kinda wish there was some service that could discover all videos tagged as music on YT, add them to funkwhale without downloading them, and then allow them to be in search and radios and stuff and just download the song with youtube-dl or something the first time they're requested. Ideally with some way to trim outros and such manually. I know even the first step of this (discovering "all videos" on YT) makes this completely infeasible though.

This comic reminds me of a classic argument used for leftist policies, unrelated to ayn rand though. Under capitalism, technological advancements are harmful to the working class because companies are likely to keep pay and hours the same, and just scale up production and/or lay off surplus labor force.

Under a system where the workers own the means of production, those same advancements could go towards lowering the hours of the employees without lowering their pay, or if they decide to scale up production then it would mean more profit that the company could decide democratically what to do with, making it likely to result in pay increases for the workers. Point is it wouldn't just go into the hands of the capitalist class, but rather stay under control of those who labored for it.