It recently struck me recently that a number of users mostly scroll the All feed. This came up in a conversation where people were discussing how their main usage of lemmy was to scroll All and then rely entirely on blocking to refine their feed.

Now whether that's a pathological instance of Hyrum's law of all possible uses being relied on or an intended or fair use of a lemmy/reddit system, it does strike me that a substantial portion of the user base doing this likely has an effect on what happens within communities and the ability for communities to define themselves.

Thoughts and speculations (and perhaps paranoia/exaggeration):

• I don't know what happened on reddit in this regard, but I wouldn't be surprised if a relatively high proportion of users rely on All as described above compared to reddit in order to "fill out" their feeds more due to the smaller user base here.
• A higher amount of All-feeders means fewer people willing to invest, contribute to or even care about specific communities.
• This likely means community migrations away from toxic mods, or, starting new communities can run into more friction or less engagement.
• Which, arguably, becomes a problematic feedback cycle in which All becomes a "better" feed than curating a set of subscriptions.
• Perhaps a clear mechanism for this to manifest is that anyone can up/down vote anything, which means All-feeders can influence what appears in Subscription-feeders' feeds by imposing their tastes/preferences on posts' scores. In fact, if All-feeders are substantial in number and activity relative to Sub-feeders, this could be a sizeable influence on post ordering across lemmy/threadiverse.

---

Now I don't know if any of this is really a problem at all, I'm just thinking out loud here (as, to make my bias clear, someone who doesn't get using the All).

As far as Lemmy design decisions go:

• Should non-subscribers be allowed or disallowed to vote on posts/comments in communities they're not subscribed to? My intuition on this is obviously not (ie, disallowed) and that the All feed is just for browsing not participating. For me, it's about enabling communities to form their own identity and sub-culture that doesn't get pushed around by others.
  • How this could be enforced? No voting from the All and/or Local feed. Seems easy and straight forward.
  • You could limit voting to those who have a subscription to the community, but then anyone could just easily subscribe and then vote while sticking to All. And that'd be harder to implement too I'd imagine.
• Maybe communities should be able to control this behaviour. Private and local-only communities are apparently on the road map. Excluding non-subscribers from voting seems like a reasonable continuation of such options.
  • To get even more annoyingly complex, I could imagine communities having the option to exclude down votes or exclude down votes for non-subscribers. I'm sure that'd raise issues for some people's feeds as non-down-voting communities might unreasonably rise to the top or something. But if multi-communities come along, and voting in All is off or not guaranteed, this feels like a non-issue to me.

cross-posted from: https://hachyderm.io/users/maegul/statuses/112442514504667645

> Google's play on Search, Ads and AI feels obvious to me. > > \* They know search is broken. > \* And that people use AI in part because it takes the ads and SEO crap out. > \* IE, AI is now what Google was in 2000. A simple window onto the internet. > \* Ads/SEO profits will fall with AI. > \* But Google will then just insert shit into AI "answers" for money. > \* Ads managed + up-to-date AI will be their new mote and golden goose. > > @technology > > See @caseynewton 's blog post: https://mastodon.social/@caseynewton/112442253435702607

Cntd (Edit):

That search/SEO is broken seems to be part of the game plan here.

It’s probably like Russia burning Moscow against Napoleon and a hell of a privilege Google enjoy with their monopoly.

I’ve seen people opt for chatGPT/AI precisely because it’s clean, simple and spam free, because it isn’t Google Search.

And as @caseynewton said … the web is now in managed decline.

For those of us who like it, it’s up to us to build what we need for ourselves. Big tech has moved on

Dunno about this.

S 1 sucked, let's be real. This doesn't convince me S2 will be any different, so I guess I'll go in expecting to be disappointed.

Though, from the plot points they're showing, it does seem like S1 was just setting the stage and now, as the show runners have claimed, they can just tell the story. We'll see I suppose.

With the VisionPro hype already dead (maybe forever?), bad or tasteless iPad ads, purposeless updates to iPad, Apple dropping their car project, and reaching out to OpenAI or Google for AI services ... it certainly feels like it to me. They've at least run into their limitations recently however much they want to find the "next iPhone".

With the VisionPro, I always thought it'd flop and so predicted that it'd be the end for Cook. I'm still holding onto that prediction.

The linked video (cinemastix) runs through the ideas (which others had come up with) and how they're actually applicable to Star Wars because Lucas said they were actually more like silent films, based more on their music and visuals than dialogue.

Now no one needs to be told the dialogue in Star Wars isn't the main attraction ... but I'd never thought about them as silent films let alone actually watching them that way. I'd kinda be into trying that out, at least maybe for ESB.

And then there's the idea of a Black and White samurai version of the prequels! Which is a thing (with Japanese dub) ... and well that actually looks legit!

In this case, it's one specific channel: https://diode.zone/c/andybalaam_lectures/videos?s=1. That is, !andybalaam_lectures@diode.zone. It's run by @andybalaam@lemmy.ml / @andybalaam@mastodon.social

AFAICT, federation hasn't been working from this channel to lemmy for ~3 months, for all the instances I checked (perhaps a particular lemmy version broke things?).

EG:

• the view on lemmy.ml
• on lemm.ee
• on programming.dev
• and on endlesstalk.org

By comparison:

• mastodon.social is up-to-date: https://mastodon.social/@andybalaam_lectures@diode.zone
• And on hachyderm.io, following the user (rather than the channel) is also up-to-date: https://hachyderm.io/deck/@andybalaam@diode.zone

I'm not following anything else on peertube so I don't know how common this is (and I couldn't find anything on the GitHub issues), but different behaviour on mastodon and lemmy would superficially indicate that it's a lemmy problem, which would be a shame given that lemmy is much better for consuming peertube.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/15178977

> FWIW, this isn't to do with me personally at all, I'm not looking to do anything dodgy here, but this came up as a theoretical question about remote work and geographical security, and I realised I didn't know enough about this (as an infosec noob) > > Presuming: > * an employer provides the employee with their laptop > * with security software installed that enables snooping and wiping etc and, > * said employer does not want their employee to work remotely from within some undesirable geographical locations > > How hard would it be for the employee to fool their employer and work from an undesirable location? > > I personally figured that it's rather plausible. Use a personal VPN configured on a personal router and then manually switch off wifi, bluetooth and automatic time zone detection. I'd presume latency analysis could be used to some extent?? But also figure two VPNs, where the second one is that provided by/for the employer, would disrupt that enough depending on the geographies involved? > > What else could be done on the laptop itself? Surreptitiously turn on wiki and scan? Can there be secret GPSs? Genuinely curious!

FWIW, this isn't to do with me personally at all, I'm not looking to do anything dodgy here, but this came up as a theoretical question about remote work and geographical security, and I realised I didn't know enough about this (as an infosec noob)

Presuming:

• an employer provides the employee with their laptop
• with security software installed that enables snooping and wiping etc and,
• said employer does not want their employee to work remotely from within some undesirable geographical locations

How hard would it be for the employee to fool their employer and work from an undesirable location?

I personally figured that it's rather plausible. Use a personal VPN configured on a personal router and then manually switch off wifi, bluetooth and automatic time zone detection. I'd presume latency analysis could be used to some extent?? But also figure two VPNs, where the second one is that provided by/for the employer, would disrupt that enough depending on the geographies involved?

What else could be done on the laptop itself? Surreptitiously turn on wiki and scan? Can there be secret GPSs? Genuinely curious!

I'm talking about !moviesandtv@lemm.ee .

Just recently had a post (cross-post of CGI video posted here) removed for no reason (none stated at least) and then they banned me for asking why.

You can see it all in the modlog, filtered to just actions against me.

The lack of any engagement on why a post gets removed and trigger happy user banning just screams bad moderator culture to me.

I didn't realise they were like this before and now realise that an alternative place that's kinder and more open is important. I don't know how the other mods (I'm mostly an accidental mod) are here, but I get the feeling that this is a nicer place and I hope it stays that way (plus the growing user numbers probably reflects this?)

Anyway, just thought I'd share as you wouldn't know when this stuff happens unless someone tells you in another community.

Hope political/drama posts are ok (I didn't see anything in the rules against them).

This is the final part of a 4 part series this person did.

If you haven't seen any of the others ... here's the playlist on youtube

You should check it out. Basically a VFX artist calling bullshit on the whole "we did it all practically without any CGI" marketing and fan hype as the lies they are. The key take away being that so much CGI is actually really hard to spot and everywhere and all of those who say they can easily spot CGI are just catching the obvious things and full of themselves.

The rest of the CGI in films is just flatly lied about by the studios. Parts 3 and 4, IIRC, do a good job of recounting how this is an old behaviour from way before CGI all tied up with the marketing (ie lying) impulses of the studios and also likely with their greed. You'll see (in part 1 I think) a particularly egregious example of lying (or being deceptive) about CGI usage.

As part 4 concludes with, you can't trust hollywood on whether they're using CGI ... they're much more interested in lying to you than being open about how they do things ... and second, the industry is now stuck in an anti-CGI hype cycle, where the audience think they know what "no-CGI" looks like because they've been influenced by the studios' lies which has now created expectations that can't be disappointed which continues the studio lies and audience misconceptions.

For me, the insidious part here is that there is a whole industry of artists being swept under the rug while also being absolutely essential to what we enjoy about films today. That they have fair compensation issues cannot be a coincidence at all. So, for me, anyone who's all about "no-CGI" in films is really part of something rather hauntingly dumb and sinister.

A little thread I wrote on masto after watching this talk by Bret Victor and reflecting on their stated ideals for how computing ought to be designed.

> By "augmenting human intellect" we mean increasing the capability of a man to approach a complex problem situation, to gain comprehension to suit his particular needs, and to derive solutions to problems.

> Man's population and gross product are increasing at a considerable rate, but the complexity of his problems grows still faster, and the urgency with which solutions must be found becomes steadily greater in response to the increased rate of activity and the increasingly global nature of that activity. Augmenting man's intellect, in the sense defined above, would warrant full pursuit by an enlightened society if there could be shown a reasonable approach and some plausible benefits.

---

Quote from Doglas Engelbart provided in this talk by @bret@dynamic.land (Bret Victor).

They’re not done yet. Just announcing (and the verge reporting on it).

Their announcement (here) is quite forceful though, interestingly. The article described it as a manifesto.

See also a recent post here about their survey on integrating activity pub: https://lemmy.ml/post/14734757

I’m personally not watching it (you could call me a bit of a disco “hater” and s4 really kinda bummed me out) … but thought I’d see how people are enjoying it and think about getting a paramount subscription.

Asked some friends and they said they’d stopped watching. Then I checked here and the other community and posts about the episodes just seem to be tepid compared to what I would have expected.

Now obviously I’ve got a bias (and I really don’t want to start kicking the show) … but am I reading this right or wrong?

Oooff ... I don't think it's like MKBHD to come down so hard on a product. But this thing seemed weird (and probably dumb) when it was launched and so I guess this lines up.

Not that a wearable assistant doesn't make some sense, but some former Apple higher ups who think they're good enough to disrupt the smartphone market by ... checks notes ... relying entirely on other companys' new/untested/problematic/maybe-just-shit AI services and pretending that all of the other "smart" devices we have just don't exist in some sort of volley in the ongoing platform wars ... really does kinda epitomise all of shittiness of the current tech world.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/13485452

> I linked to this in a previous post along with my hot take about general things (https://hachyderm.io/@maegul/112132220413742000) > > But really, if you're into films, into VFX/SFX/behind-the-scenes stuff, and find the state of VFX in the film industry interesting (I'm constantly amazed at the size of the VFX credits in films) ... > > ... then this is really worth a watch. > > I found part 3 particularly enjoyable as it looks at the history of using matte paintings for what CGI is often used now ... and also looks at oppenheimer to, in the end, illustrate that the term "CGI" and the CGI v practical divide are not really useful. >

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/13353225

> Quick little confusion or even foot-gun I ran into (while working on the challenge I posed earlier). > > ### TLDR > > My understanding of what I ran into here: > > * Matching on multiple variables simultaneously requires assigning them to a tuple (?), > * which happens more or less implicitly (?), > * and which takes ownership of said variables. > * This ownership doesn't occur when matching against a single variable (?) > * Depending on the variables and what's happening in the match arms this difference can be the difference between compiling and not. > > Anyone got insights they're willing to share?? > > ### Intro > > I had some logic that entailed matching on two variables. Instead of having two match statements, one nested in the other, I figured it'd be more elegant to match on both simultaneously. > > An inline tuple seemed the obvious way to do so and it works, but it seems that the tuple creates some ownership problems I didn't anticipate, mostly because I was thinking of it as essentially syntax and not an actual tuple variable. > > As you'll see below, the same logic with nested match statements each on a single variable doesn't suffer from the same issues. > > ### Demo Code > > rust > fn main() { > > // # Data structures > enum Kind { > A, > B > } > struct Data { > kind: Kind > } > > // # Implementation > let data = vec![Data{kind: Kind::A}]; > > // ## Basic idea: process two adjacent data points > let prev_data = data.last().unwrap(); > let new_data = Data{kind: Kind::B}; > > // --- MATCH STATEMENTS --- > > // ## This works: match on one then the other > let next_data = match prev_data.kind { > Kind::A => match new_data.kind { > Kind::A => 1, > Kind::B => 2, > }, > Kind::B => match new_data.kind { > Kind::A => 3, > Kind::B => 4, > }, > }; > > // ## This does NOT work: match on both > let next_data2 = match (prev_data.kind, new_data.kind) { > (Kind::A, Kind::A) => 1, > (Kind::A, Kind::B) => 2, > (Kind::B, Kind::A) => 3, > (Kind::B, Kind::B) => 4, > }; > } > > > ### The Error > > The error is on the line let next_data = match (prev_data.kind, new_data.kind), specifically the tuple and its first element prev_data.kind, with the error: > > > error[E0507]: cannot move out of `prev_data.kind` which is behind a shared reference > > move occurs because `prev_data.kind` has type `Kind`, which does not implement the `Copy` trait > > > ### The Confusion > > So prev_data.kind needs to be moved. That's ok. Borrowing it with (&prev_data.kind, ...) fixes the problem just fine, though that can cause issues if I then want to move the variable within the match statement, which was generally the idea of the logic I was trying to write. > > What got me was that the same logic but with nested match statements works just fine. > > I'm still not clear on this, but it seems that the inline tuple in the second tuple-based approach is a variable that takes ownership of the variables assigned to it. Which makes perfect sense ... my simple mind just thought of it as syntax for interleaving multiple match statements I suppose. In the case of nested match statements however, I'm guessing that each match statement is its own scope. > > The main thing I haven't been able to clarify is what are the ownership dynamics/behaviours of match statements?? It seems that there's maybe a bit happening implicitly here?? I haven't looked super hard but it does seem like something that's readily glossed over in the materials I've seen thus far?? > > ### General Implications > > AFAICT: > * if you want to match on two or more variables simultaneously, you'll probably need borrow them in the match statement if they're anything but directly owned variables. > * If you want to then use or move them in the match arms you may have to wrangle with ownership or just use nested match statements instead (or refactor your logic/implementation). > * So probably don't do multi-variable matching unless the tuple of variables is a variable native to the logic?

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/13060811

> It doesn't disprove the "unadaptable" claim about the book. > > I liked the film, am a fan of the book, and this isn't a "book was better, they should have just stuck to the book" opinion. > > It's more that watching it (and I'd be curious to see if this feeling changes on re-watch or seeing it back-to-back with pt 1) I felt Denis struggle to achieve everything he was aiming for while controlling rhythm and momentum in a compelling way that captures the spirit of the story and its world. > > > ::: spoiler General spoilers for the story if you haven't read the book and some minor ones about the film > Watching it, I thought the middle section up to Paul drinking the water of life was struggling to not be slow but also convey a sense of gravity and alien spookiness. IMO, it failed at both. The final fight with Routha, without out any sense of Paul's special KH perspective, feels like an anti-climax. Ditto with the ploy of threatening to destroy the spice not actually working as the houses don't accept his ascension. The lack of any substantial passage of time undermines the feeling of growth and settling into fremen culture that was sitting right there for Dennis. While the whole messianic issue is given a good amount of attention, no doubt in preparation for pt 3, Paul as KH and the particular struggle he goes through is not. > > And to be a tad more superficial, the whole IR sequence on the Geidi Prime (Harkonnen home planet) felt rather distracting and unnecessary ... the alien/HR Giger -esque aesthetic of the Harkonnens was plenty of creepiness while jumping from visual to IR and back to visual spectra felt disjointed and distracting. I would have preferred a clear look at some Giger-ish art design than the IR look. > > Like I said, I liked it. But I could see cracks in the adaptation and with the film being as good as it is I can't help but wonder what could have been. > > I wasn't going to post this until I watched this interview with Denis on what his influences were for pt 2. Good interview. You'll find Lawrence of Arabia in his list, which makes a lot of sense. What prompted me here though was that he cited the Road Runner cartoon, where he admitted to wanting to improve on Dune pt 1, specifically to do better at rhythm and momentum, and that he felt like taking notes from Chuck Jones set off a grenade for him. I feel like that's what I'm picking up on ... he clearly was after some sort of forceful pacing ... while what I felt was that the film/story wasn't given the time to breath it needed. > > I'd even go so far as to suggest that his statement in the interview kinda confirms my thought, that he really wasn't quite sure how to manage rhythm and momentum for pt 2, which of the two parts does a lot of the heavy lifting in terms of plot (with pt 1 doing world building and succeeding wonderfully IMO) ... and was searching for some inspiration which, IMO, didn't quite land. > ::: > > --- > > For me, I keep coming back to LotR and its film adaptation, an importance reference/standard for this IMO, where I think everyone would agree that the third film, RotK, really captured the spirit and feeling of the book/story (yes even the multiple endings) and nailed the rhythm and momentum for that story. > > With Dune pt 2, I've come away not feeling like I watched the story of Paul Atreides. It's something close, frustratingly so for me ATM, to the point where I'm inclined to re-read the book to kinda look for this sense I have in my mind. By contrast, the LotR films never made me want to re-read the books straight after, as I was happy with them as their own experience of the story.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/12904730

> It seems they’re not far from finishing and have the first few chapters up for early access and feedback. It could be the go to text for learning the protocol.