Jayjader

joined 1 year ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] Jayjader@jlai.lu 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"possibilité de finaliser votre accès au portail sécurisé" alors que les places sont limitées ?! Doit bien avoir un contexte qui rend ça pas étonnant, mais non ça me terrifie quand même de lire ça et imaginer le service d'administration cantonale des impôts être géré de fond en comble de la sorte...

[–] Jayjader@jlai.lu 3 points 2 days ago

Bernhardt tweeted in January 2025: “The dead internet theory is coming to fruition.” And he’s doing his part.

.... we live in a farce

[–] Jayjader@jlai.lu 9 points 4 days ago

A second good read is her follow-up/response post: Re: Re: Bluesky and Decentralization

[–] Jayjader@jlai.lu 10 points 5 days ago (5 children)
[–] Jayjader@jlai.lu 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, federation really is the killer feature for this compared to all of these centralized private services.

Sadly, I expect federation won't be foolproof/enough on its own. The fascists control more and more of the USA government. If/when they come after the fediverse it will be through whichever mechanism suffices to neuter it, including:

  • A "great American firewall" to cut off instances hosted outside the country
  • mandatory registration for any citizen leasing a domain name or a static IP address
  • forced rootkits on all citizen devices

and all they'll have to say is "China/Russia/Europe/Iran/etc is infiltrating our glorious social media and making it unpatriotic" to justify it.

They don't really need to truly "kill" the fediverse, they just need to make using it enough of a pain in the ass and/or dangerous that not enough people use it for it to matter.

Anyways, the point of my comment is to encourage everyone who cares about this to try spending a little thought towards fail-safes for when federation won't be enough, and/or things we could be doing now to further protect our capacity to form these independent online communities.

If they do crack down on Reddit, it'll be one of the few opportunities we will have to "get ahead" on public sentiment and help people get accustomed to federated social media. Each additional person that is participating in the fediverse raises its resilience - from instance operating to moderation to sharing and cross posting.

Ideally we would see x new instances crop up for every y new participants. With a more reactive approach of spinning up instances as existing ones get taken down, I fear we would set ourselves up for a slow fragmentation into obscurity.

[–] Jayjader@jlai.lu 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)
[–] Jayjader@jlai.lu 8 points 6 days ago

The last thing I want to do is to make some flippant remark, but holy hell. I saw his release picture before fully parsing the title, and thought he was a Holocaust / concentration camp survivor.

[–] Jayjader@jlai.lu 59 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Artificial Intelligence Image

For some reason it's hilarious to me that the person who made this flyer felt the need to specify that the ClipArt-level illustration, placed next to 3-4 pictures of the kid the flyer is complaining about, is not, in fact, an actual image of the kid.

[–] Jayjader@jlai.lu 1 points 2 weeks ago

Thank you both (@NinjaFox@lemmy.blahaj.zone, @ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org) for taking the time to make this post not just more accessible but somewhat more bit-/link-rot-resilient by duplicating the image's info as a text comment.

We don't talk about it as much as authoritarian censorship, ip & copyright related takedowns, and their ilk, but image macros/memes often have regrettably small lifetimes as publicly accessible data in my experience. It might be for any number of reasons, including:

  • because many of them are created on free generator websites that can't afford to store every generated image forever,
  • because people often share screenshots of things instead of a link to it,
  • because for-profit social media websites are increasingly requiring account creation to view previously accessible content,

or (more probably) a combination of all three and more.

In any case as silly as image memes are, they're also an important vector for keeping culture and communities alive (at least here on the fediverse). In 5-10 years, this transcription has a much higher chance of still hanging around in some instance's backups than the image it is transcribing.

P.S.: sure, knowyourmeme is a thing, but they're still only 1 website and ~~I'm not sure if~~ there's not much recent fediverse stuff there ~~yet~~. The mastodon page last updated in 2017 and conflates the software project with the mastodon.social instance (likely through a poor reading of it's first source, a The Verge article that's decent but was written in 2017).

P.P.S.: ideally, OP (@cantankerous_cashew@lemmy.world) could add this transcription directly to the post's alt text, but I don't know if they use a client that makes that easy for them...

[–] Jayjader@jlai.lu 1 points 2 weeks ago

It's a bit sad, but not that surprising, that if this is true then Microsoft is clearly not tasking their most experienced engineers on the control panel (you know, that part of the OS who's function is to allow you to tweak all the rest of the OS?).

[–] Jayjader@jlai.lu 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I think downvote anonymity is the bigger part of the problem, not downvotes in general. Unless I'm misunderstanding, what you're proposing amounts to "if you want to downvote in a community you'll need to make an account on it's instance". This would be a nice option to have, but it should also remain an option.

In your +50/-90 example, showing at least the instance provenance for votes allows more (sub)cases. If I can see that 55 of the downvotes come from the instance hosting the community, that's potentially a very different situation than if only 5 do. Or if 70 of the downvotes come from a pair of instances that aren't the community host. The current anonymity of these downvotes flattens these nuances into the same "-40", which I agree isn't great when it can lead to deletion - but I'd argue that's also an entirely separate problem that might be better addressed from a different angle. I find that disabling downvotes from other instances entirely flattens things just as much if not more, just not in the same manner. Instead of wondering how representative a big upvote or downvote count is, I'm now wondering how representative a big upvote count is, period. That might seem like 50% less wondering but with no downvotes at all it might also only be about 50% less votes.

I'm not convinced silencing negative outside contributions won't just shift the echo-chamber-forming to one that's more based around a form of toxic positivity and/or reddit-style reposts and joke comments, either.

Revealing from which instances downvotes come from doesn't prevent opinion downvotes but it allows dulling their bite. The same is true for opinion upvotes.

From my understanding votes are more-or-less already somewhat public on lemmy between it's implementation and what federation needs to function properly. At the very least, each instance knows how many votes they're getting from the other instances. We should embrace the nuances federation brings to the problem instead of throwing them away entirely.

So much thought has been put into "how do we convey the different instances' character and their relations to each other to new (potential) users in a way that doesn't a) overload them and/or b) scare them away with content that rubs them the wrong way" in communities and posts like these, when potentially we just need to render more visible the data that is already present on the instance servers.

I'll acknowledge up-front that the "just" in the previous sentence is carrying a lot of weight; data viz is not easy on the best of days and votes have so little screen real-estate to work with. On top of that, any UI feature that can make what I'm suggesting palatable and accessible to non-power users would also need to be replicated across most popular clients. They're written in a motley assortment of programming languages and ecosystems, and range from targeting browsers to native smartphone OSes, so the development efforts would be difficult to share and carry over from one client to the next. Still, they're called votes: there's a lot of prior art in polling software and news coverage of elections from the past few years that should be publicly accessible (at least in terms of screenshots, stills, and videos of the UI, if not a working version of it to play around with).

On top of this, I don't know how much effort this would require on backend devs for lemmy (and kbin/mbin I forget which is the survivor, and piefed, and any other threadiverse instance software I'm currently unaware of). I wouldn't expect keeping track of vote provenance to prove immensely difficult, but it could cause some sort of combinatorial explosion in the overhead required by the different sorting algorithms proposed (I'm ignorant on how much they cache vs how often they're run for lemmy, for example).

I can't foretell if this would "solve" opinion downvotes on it's own, but I do think it would contribute to the necessary conditions for people to drift away from the more toxic forms of it. It could also become another option for viewing feeds on top of "subscribed"/"local"/"all" + the different vote rankings.

[–] Jayjader@jlai.lu 1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

From what I understand its origin in street racing was because japanese drivers (specifically? might have been Asian more generally) were souping up cars to look pretty but still not run great. I'm hazy on the details and my google-fu is failing me - I wish I had a more precise answer but overall I recall being bummed out at how even the origins of the term weren't as clean as I had hoped.

 

Je découvre ce titre aujourd'hui 😇

 
42
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by Jayjader@jlai.lu to c/forumlibre@jlai.lu
 

réf a mon poste

 

95,350,331 documents from at least 17 data breaches and had a total size of 30.1GB

“This database is dedicated to compiling information from multiple French-related data breaches and includes previously known and unknown leaks,” researchers said.

L'explication donnée par l'article me parait correcte, mais j'y connais rien a ce genre de fuite.

Parmis les fichiers du leak, le seul truc que je reconnais est le suivant:

ldlc.txt. Points to an alleged compromise involving LDLC, a French online electronics retailer.

LDLC pwned ? :(

 

Je lisais des fils dans !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com et suis tombé sur une n-ième discussion concernant les chars, les ours, et la dés[t]alinisation du développement du logiciel lemmy (dsl pour les jeux de mots enfantins mais c'est pas la partie importante de mon message et je ne veux surtout pas relancer de sujet à leur propos).

Non seulement des discussions assez intéressantes politiquement (et pas que sur les logiciels du fédivers), mais surtout j'y découvre qu'il y a plusieurs tentatives de fork de Lemmy en ce moment, ainsi qu'apparemment sublinks se voudrait être capable de fonctionner directement avec une ancienne db de/pour lemmy.

Le commentaire qui en parle dans la discussion : https://jlai.lu/comment/10577392

Perso, je préfère investir mes efforts sur mon projet de client activity pub multi-services^[0], donc je ne vais militer dans un sens ni l'autre. Ça me semblait juste pertinent de partager cette info au cas où ça aiderait la réflexion (si elle n'est pas déjà résolue).

[0] : pour l'instant ça sait afficher des objets AP lus sur une URL en json brut, et si toi tu lui dis qu'un objet particulier est un pouet masto il l'affiche alors un peu plus mis en page. Si un jour j'arrive a en être satisfait de sa capacité "client Lemmy/piefed/etc" je reviens volontiers en faire la promo, mais c'est pas pour demain!

 
 

J'ignore comment rendre justice à l'expérience qu'à été ma lecture de ce livre.

Dévoré en quelques jours. Le dernier tiers en particulier m'a retenu éveillé jusqu'à 3h du matin, le récit tellement fort que je ne pouvais me convaincre d'attendre le lendemain pour le terminer.

Un certain ressenti de découvrir le livre que j'aurais écrit, dans une autre vie, si j'avais choisi un parcours "littéraire" et non "scientifique". Un renouveau de rage écologique maintenu sous contrôle, presque étouffé, par un calme fataliste qui n'est pas pour autant un lâcher-prise. Si Les Soulèvements De La Terre était une religion ceci serait sans doute un de leurs textes sacrés, et Powers un de leurs prophètes (bien que Bouddha serait plus apte comme label). Heureusement, ce n'est pas une religion, et ce livre n'est pas un texte divin. Au contraire, je le trouve profondément profane, et humain.

Au-delà du "contenu" (cad les thèmes abordés, les arcs narratifs et péripéties suivi(e)s) la forme est remarquable. Powers écrit avec un style de narration qui, tel la conduite d'une auto à boite de vitesse dans une contrée vallonnée, change de trajectoire et d'allure dès qu'on a avancé une centaine de mètres. Et tout comme cette conduite, l'expérience qui en ressort n'est pas une succession d'interruptions qui nous laisse sur le qui-vive, mais un état de conscience profonde qui s’imprègne simultanément de chaque détail séparé et du mouvement de l'ensemble. Il y a des phrases qui donnent l'impression que le livre entier a été écrit et construit autour d'elles.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Arbre-monde

 
 

cross-posted from: https://jlai.lu/post/10771034

n’hésitez-pas à me demander de traduire certains passages de mon post en français si besoin

Personal review:

A good recap of his previous writings and talks on the subject for the first third, but a bit long. Having paid attention to them for the past year or two, my attention started drifting a few times. I ended up being more impressed with how much he's managed to condense explaining "enshittification" from 45+ minutes down to around 15.

As soon as he starts building off of that to work towards the core of his message for this talk, I was more-or-less glued to the screen. At first because it's not exactly clear where he's going, and there are (what felt like) many specific court rulings to keep up with. Thankfully, once he has laid enough groundwork he gets straight his point. I don't want to spoil or otherwise lessen the performance he gives, so I won't directly comment on what his point is in the body of this post - I think the comments are better suited for that anyways.

I found the rest to be pretty compelling. He rides the fine line between directionless discontent and overenthusiastic activist-with-a-plan as he doubles down on his narrative by calling back to the various bits of groundwork he laid before - now that we're "in" on the idea, what felt like stumbling around in the dark turns into an illuminating path through some of the specifics of the last twenty to forty years of the dynamics of power between tech bosses and their employees. The rousing call to action was also great way to end and wrap it all up.

I've become very biased towards Cory Doctorow's ideas, in part because they line up with a lot of the impressions I have from my few years working as a dev in a big-ish multinational tech company. This talk has done nothing to diminish that bias - on the contrary.

 

cross-posted from: https://jlai.lu/post/10771035, https://jlai.lu/post/10771034

Personal review:

A good recap of his previous writings and talks on the subject for the first third, but a bit long. Having paid attention to them for the past year or two, my attention started drifting a few times. I ended up being more impressed with how much he's managed to condense explaining "enshittification" from 45+ minutes down to around 15.

As soon as he starts building off of that to work towards the core of his message for this talk, I was more-or-less glued to the screen. At first because it's not exactly clear where he's going, and there are (what felt like) many specific court rulings to keep up with. Thankfully, once he has laid enough groundwork he gets straight his point. I don't want to spoil or otherwise lessen the performance he gives, so I won't directly comment on what his point is in the body of this post - I think the comments are better suited for that anyways.

I found the rest to be pretty compelling. He rides the fine line between directionless discontent and overenthusiastic activist-with-a-plan as he doubles down on his narrative by calling back to the various bits of groundwork he laid before - now that we're "in" on the idea, what felt like stumbling around in the dark turns into an illuminating path through some of the specifics of the last twenty to forty years of the dynamics of power between tech bosses and their employees. The rousing call to action was also great way to end and wrap it all up.

I've become very biased towards Cory Doctorow's ideas, in part because they line up with a lot of the impressions I have from my few years working as a dev in a big-ish multinational tech company. This talk has done nothing to diminish that bias - on the contrary.

 

cross-posted from: https://jlai.lu/post/10771034

Personal review:

A good recap of his previous writings and talks on the subject for the first third, but a bit long. Having paid attention to them for the past year or two, my attention started drifting a few times. I ended up being more impressed with how much he's managed to condense explaining "enshittification" from 45+ minutes down to around 15.

As soon as he starts building off of that to work towards the core of his message for this talk, I was more-or-less glued to the screen. At first because it's not exactly clear where he's going, and there are (what felt like) many specific court rulings to keep up with. Thankfully, once he has laid enough groundwork he gets straight his point. I don't want to spoil or otherwise lessen the performance he gives, so I won't directly comment on what his point is in the body of this post - I think the comments are better suited for that anyways.

I found the rest to be pretty compelling. He rides the fine line between directionless discontent and overenthusiastic activist-with-a-plan as he doubles down on his narrative by calling back to the various bits of groundwork he laid before - now that we're "in" on the idea, what felt like stumbling around in the dark turns into an illuminating path through some of the specifics of the last twenty to forty years of the dynamics of power between tech bosses and their employees. The rousing call to action was also great way to end and wrap it all up.

I've become very biased towards Cory Doctorow's ideas, in part because they line up with a lot of the impressions I have from my few years working as a dev in a big-ish multinational tech company. This talk has done nothing to diminish that bias - on the contrary.

 

Personal review:

A good recap of his previous writings and talks on the subject for the first third, but a bit long. Having paid attention to them for the past year or two, my attention started drifting a few times. I ended up being more impressed with how much he's managed to condense explaining "enshittification" from 45+ minutes down to around 15.

As soon as he starts building off of that to work towards the core of his message for this talk, I was more-or-less glued to the screen. At first because it's not exactly clear where he's going, and there are (what felt like) many specific court rulings to keep up with. Thankfully, once he has laid enough groundwork he gets straight his point. I don't want to spoil or otherwise lessen the performance he gives, so I won't directly comment on what his point is in the body of this post - I think the comments are better suited for that anyways.

I found the rest to be pretty compelling. He rides the fine line between directionless discontent and overenthusiastic activist-with-a-plan as he doubles down on his narrative by calling back to the various bits of groundwork he laid before - now that we're "in" on the idea, what felt like stumbling around in the dark turns into an illuminating path through some of the specifics of the last twenty to forty years of the dynamics of power between tech bosses and their employees. The rousing call to action was also great way to end and wrap it all up.

I've become very biased towards Cory Doctorow's ideas, in part because they line up with a lot of the impressions I have from my few years working as a dev in a big-ish multinational tech company. This talk has done nothing to diminish that bias - on the contrary.

view more: next ›