I’m not going to watch a video about polishing a turd but I assume the turd remains a turd.

You’ll not I didn’t actually make the claim that its not possible.

There’s a popular phrase “you can’t polish a turd”. The meaning in this case being that if you put a nice UI on chromium it’s still chromium.

Hey check out this turd I polished.

Yeah not sure how I feel about BRI. It’s telling me my BRI is fine, but I’m rounder than I’d like to be.

Ooh.

Thanks.

I’ve been running the fork for a long time but somehow figured it was a soft-fork and maybe not really viable without upstream development from syncthing.

Now @imsodin@infosec.pub 's comments are making a lot more sense.

This whole thing is more or less a non-issue then?

It’s been forever since I looked at resilio so this may be an unfair appraisal but… I seem to remember it’s one of those OSS projects that feels a lot more like free tier commercial software. Do you think that’s the case or nah?

Honestly just a dumb rsync client would be enough for me.

God this is sad.

The parts of tech that are useful and elegant are contracting, while subscriptions and ads just get more obnoxious.

They said somewhere that the play store thing is not the reason, it’s just one of the more recent issues.

What is this alternative of which you speak?

Yeah I don’t know enough about the technologies involved to have an informed opinion but solutions involving nuclear always seem like this…

“Just let us keep doing what we’re doing while we invent a new technology that will solve all our problems.”

Obviously, the answer is… we absolutely should invent this new technology but while we’re doing that we can transition to renewables and avoid grifts that rely on absurd energy usage like crypto and AI.

This is the answer.

I use syncthing to sync between devices.

Yes. I think it would be hard to find anyone who thinks chagossians should not be consulted in determining what happens with their island.

The stark reality is that it’s probably just not possible, in any meaningful way.

I have first hand experience in this type of negotiation with community / minority group trying to navigate the best outcomes for them with their limited resources, although of course nothing so dramatic as deciding what to do with an island.

The first problem you encounter is that their is very limited governance within the group, or no governance, or extraordinarily poor governance which is acting against the best interests of the group. Straight off the bat you can end up mediating internal disputes which might be generational feuds. For chagossians, you might ask who gets consulted and are they reasonable representatives of the group.

The next problem you encounter is that the demands of the group may very likely be unreasonable and unachievable, and the group might become hostile if they are unmet. For example you might think possible outcomes in this circumstances are stay with UK, join Mauritius, or become a sovereign nation. What happens if the group demands a fourth option, a new island, in the mid latitudes, unpopulated, potential for local fishing industry, et cetera. You can’t really negotiate with a group that would make such a demand.

Another problem is that, well, the stark reality is that maybe the Chagossians don’t really have any meaningful options. What’s the point of negotiating if the only potential outcome is being subsumed by Mauritius and accepting whatever they will provide.

In addition, no matter how much you consult with them, there will always be someone that says they weren’t consulted and they’re bitter because they didn’t receive their new tropical island.

Finally, if things need to be resolved in a timely manner, then involving the Chagossians isn’t going to achieve that. The only option is to hand them over to Mauritius and let them manage all of these issues that have been simmering away since the dawn of time.

I don’t really know anything about Chagos, but is that really what the islanders want? A quick google suggests the islanders might find it difficult to agree.

Most micro island nations just aren’t viable as a sovereign nation in 2024. They need air travel, health services, telecommunications, building materials, food imports, education, et cetera. Sadly they just aren’t able to produce anything of any value with which to pay for all of those things.

In many cases they end up trading their sovereignty for political positions. It looks like there’s already a detention centre for sri lankans in Chagos. China will happily pay then millions a year for them not to recognise Taiwan as a sovereign state, which is kinda ironic.

Nauru is a fairly interesting island nation. They sold the rights to their phosphate (bird poo) 80 (?) some years ago, and after it was extracted they were left with a moon scape. Sadly they squandered the money with some comically bad investments, including a broadway production IIRC. Health outcomes are pretty terrible.

It looks like there’s already a military base in Chagos, so I guess that’s something they can trade on.

Another problem with sovereignty is migration rights. If you’re born somewhere like that you would absolutely want the opportunity to go to university in Australia or UK or similar.

This is me.

In public dns, configure *.home.example.com as an A record pointing to the local IP for my traefik container.

Traefik then manages all certificates. It sets a TXT record with my dns providers API like privatesercice.home.lebowheatcroft.com, requests the cert from letsencrypt, then deletes that TXT record.

Yes the local IP of my server is leaked, but names of services are not.

A lot of what you’re saying is getting lost in the weeds of semantics I think.

Much of the wikipedia article links to this source: Pearl, Tracy Hresko (2015) “Crowd Crush: How the Law Leaves American Crowds Unprotected,” Kentucky Law Journal: Vol. 104: Iss. 1, Article 4.

Which says (emphasis mine):

C. Crowd Psychology

Despite what the incidents described above may suggest to people not well-versed in crowd science, studies have consistently shown that crowd behavior is rarely irrational or "crazed.“t ° Instead, scientists have found the opposite: “that an unorchestrated crowd behaves rationally.”” ° Scientists assert that this rationality is present in crowds because, in most situations, “members of the crowds have dear knowledge of what and where their goals lie”: entering a stadium, moving closer to the entertainment, returning to the parking lot, etc.

Furthermore, despite what media accounts of crowd incidents may suggest, there is very little evidence suggesting that crowds are prone to panic or unreasonable behavior. 12 Not only are documented cases of true crowd panic "surprisingly scarce in the literature,"1 13 closer investigation of such incidents usually reveals both (a) that the crowd responded rationally to a real or perceived threat,’ and (b) that “[u]nregulated competition, which is crucial to most explanations of panic, did not occur,” but rather "cooperative behavior continued throughout the course of the event."1 15 Even in situations in which crowds have reacted dramatically to a real or perceived threat, subsequent investigations have almost always shown that “flight was a reasonable group reaction under the perceived circumstances” and that “mutual cooperation and assistance” rather than “destructive behavior” was the norm among individuals within the group. 1 6

However, crowds are often unfairly deemed irrational or “out of control,” because of a characteristic that is inherent in almost every crowd, particularly those of high densities: the lack of communication between the front of the crowd and the back-1 7 “People in a crowd do not have a broad view of what is happening around them,” notes one crowd expert.Instead, “psychologists have likened a crowd to a series of intermeshing behavioral cells. Each cell is comprised of a small group of surrounding people, with limited communication between them.” 9 As a result, when crowds reach high-risk densities, people at the back of the crowd may continue to press forward even though individuals at the front of the crowd are in severe distress 12 ° Indeed, unless the venue has some way of both overseeing and addressing the entire crowd, embers at the back of the crowd have virtually no way of knowing that a crisis is occurring up front.12’ Moreover, in many situations, “[t]he collapsing of the front ranks [of the crowd] gives a false perception of forward movement” so that individuals at the back of the crowd may reasonably believe that all is well and that the crowd is continuing to move forward smoothly. 122 Thus, contrary to frequent allegations that crowd members behaved badly during crowd crushes, the overwhelming bulk of available evidence suggests that crowd members behaved rationally under the circumstances in virtually every crowd crush incident on record.

This rational behavior on the part of crowds is scientifically significant because it means that crowds are highly predictable-even in emergency situations-and that "[t]he motion of a crowd can therefore be modeled using engineering principles."12 3 This predictability is also highly significant to the legal notions of breach and causation (and thus liability overall), as discussed below.

Something that isn’t really captured here is how a crowd can generate so much force. I guess the pressure is increased as each “cell” absorbs the push from behind and adds more of their own push.

I don’t think the terminology really helps because the nuanced difference between different types of incidents is lost on me.

It might be better to simply say that deaths in crowds are never caused by panic, but rather the mismanagement of crowds leading to too much density.

In my experience syncthing is always a bit like that using the default discovery settings.

I use a hub & spoke set up now. Instead of A, B, and C all connecting to each other directly, they only connect to D. I also input the address for D specifically instead of using discovery servers.

With this set up I’ve never had any drama.

Perhaps. I think consumers are more willing to pay producers than they have been in the past. I acknowledge that the time is not yet right, but with time, the less appealing youtube is the more likely alternatives will become.

This is saddening.

I know the invidious contributors have been working on this over the last few months. Looks like they finally got there only to have youtube slam the door. That’s a real gut punch.

I already switched to running an instance at home instead of my VPS, so this news doesn’t change much for me personally but it’s a demonstration that youtube is actively seeking to block the project.

As with reddit / lemmy, I doubt a viable alternative will emerge until youtube has become well and truly offensive.

I really wish more youtube producers would cross post to other platforms.

One is online.