Yes, but we forget it right now. We will look and come back with an edit if we find it.

Edit: https://pivot-to-ai.com

Perhaps you may enjoy this site then: https://www.web3isgoinggreat.com

An opportunity cost is the opposite of a sunk cost apparently: https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/46042/what-is-the-opposite-of-a-sunk-cost-a-sunk-gain

What version are you running? They released a new version of Freetube today.

That’s fair, you don’t have to know.

Also just to let you know, using ‘blind’ like that is ableist. It’s better to use something like “ignorant” or “not knowing/lacking knowledge” etc.

I agree that actual democracy is important. However, most voting is barely democracy.

The end goal would be direct democracy, but in the mean time under representative democracy systems first past the post isn’t a very good system for democracy, that honour really only falls to mixed member proportional respresentation (though any voting system is better than first past the post).

Definitely don’t install the bypass paywalls clean extension or script so you don’t have to take a single manual action to get around them. That would be extremely contraversial!

Agreed

Some{one/many} should free those details.

No, but this is why we think centralising the operations of the internet isn’t a good idea. The web was meant to be decentralised and federated, yet it has become centralised and has mostly a few walled gardens.

The fediverse and matrix etc may not be perfect, but technically they are some of the better ideas in terms of ensuring if one server or even quite a few servers go down the whole of a network/service doesn’t.

Yeah, sadly that is what teaser trailers do.

I do trust them to make it good based on their previous work.

All I am saying is that if the goal is to get people to use open source software (which it seems like this post is about and a lot of the discussions are too) then developers would need to make things which worked for people and listen to their feedback.

If that is not the goal and folks in this thread are happy for people to continue to use closed source software because it has more funding and thus better UI/UX, or just it is more in their interests to make things that appeal to people regardless of funding then that that is okay.

However, there seems to be a ideology where people evangalise open source software to folks yet ignore all of its flaws and tell them not to use closed source software that just looks and works better (arguably not all of the time but in some cases this is accurate).

So either we can have things that work for people, or we can have open source but not both all of the time because either open source devs cannot afford to make it so (which is understandable) or do not wish to.

This is the main point of contention I have been trying to get at but have not been putting very well until now.

No, that isn’t really what I’m talking about.

Sure, code quality matters.

I’m talking about things like mastodon trying to push a certain outlook upon its users just because the main dev thinks they should be using it a certain way, and hating how people actually use it.

It’s funny how you resort to personal insults to me even though I have not really to you. It’s true there are a lot of punctuation rules I do not understand. However, I would point out that this is not an english test, so it doesn’t matter.

Sadly, I am a writer, not a coder.

I have tried, but it never really stuck for me.

I can plan things out, know how they will work, but actually programming it is very unlikely.

There are two problems there:

One is that not all open source developers accept payment, this is accurate, we have come across some that refuse to be paid for their work and not everone has the money to pay for it.

This forces, we believe, people back into the freemium etc model. So really there don’t seem to be a lot of good solutions here, which seems to go against the original post.

Either folks somehow pool together to have enough resources to pay open source devs, we put up with whatever they decide to do, we create a new movement focused more around what the community wants or we go back to corporations, most will probably choose the latter as there’s less tension there.

Something to think on.

Correct, it is jaded. We have watched a lot of devs become worse and worse over time, ignore perfectly reasonable and useful requests or instead of implementing an already existing solution to a problem find a workaround to that problem instead which then goes on to not work forever.

So, if open source developers do not want to do the work, which is fair then either we have to create a new movement that is more community driven, or go back to corporations which the latter at least seems like not a great situation to be in.

Sure, but then we only have corporations left to turn to if open source devs don’t wish to do what is best for users.

Kind of goes against the point of the original post.

We’ve thought about it before, might just do it, but can’t pay much.

Sure, however, this apart from paying them goes against the original post then, doesn’t it?

Either we can be paying customers of a corporation and hopefully get what we want by leveraging social pressure or we have to put up with whatever open source devs decide, they might not even accept payment.

A pretty dire situation to be in.

Yeah, agreed.

okidoke, fair enough