• 0 Posts
  • 20 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 2nd, 2023

help-circle
  • Imo part of the problem with mastodon, at least in my experience, is that it’s sold as a twitter replacement while still being devoloped and largely populated by people who don’t like twitter (because it’s too “toxic”). This means that you can’t really have the twitter experience on mastodon by design so people coming from twitter mostly wanting to get away from musk bounce of. Bluesky has been a more successfull twitter replacement and I think that’s largely because it basically is twitter with feeds.

    I think that mastodon should either commit to being more like twitter (which it is propably too late for at this point since I don’t imagine that their current userbase would be into that) or people should stop trying to make it the new twitter and instead let it be it’s own kind of different thing.


  • It’s gonna go public eventually, this is like a closed beta kind of thing. The purpose seems to be more to get people curious about it and foster a certain culture which I must say that they’ve been pretty effective at. They strategically handed out invites to a lot of black twitter users for example, which is smart since black twitter has historically been an important cultural force on the internet



  • Depends on in what way you’re looking for a youtube alternative!

    I think peertube might be fine if you’re looking for a way to host your own videos, but it’s propably not a good place to just browse for video content the way you might with youtube. I think the most solid alternative for that is Nebula. It costs like a dollar a month IIRC and has a couple big name video easayist kind of types. It doesn’t really have anything to do with the fediverse or anything, but a majority of it is owned by the creators and from what I understand it is more generous per view than youtube, plus it has a buissiness model that doesn’t rely on serving you adds and selling your data.






  • While I think that the article is correct in stating that mastodon isn’t currently a serious competitor to facebook, it’s possible that it (or something else based of activitypub) might become that one day. I think that there’s a decent chance that facebook might want to prevent fediverse spaces from potentially becoming serious competitors, and even if that’s not the main reason why their implementing activitypub, if e.g. mastodon ever does get to a point where it can challange meta (which I think most of us are hoping!) then facebook will use the position of power they will have over activitypub to try to prevent that. I think it’s a misstake to give facebook any power of our spaces because that means essentially giving up on the idea of an internet not controlled by large corporations like facebook.




  • Hey, glad to hear that we’re mostly on the same page!

    I should clarify that I’m just grouping fun friends and racist uncles together in the sense that they’re both groups of people who might only join the fediverse through threads in the forseable future. This is obviously a very hetrogenous groups so it’s not surprising that it contains very different kinds of people.


  • I just read a comment about someone grouping a racist uncle and funny friend into the same category of normie because they aren’t up to date on the fediverse or super tech savvy or whatever.

    Hey, I think that was my comment!

    What I was trying to say is that the barrier of entry for joining the fediverse is too high for some people, and one appeal of threads is that people who wouldn’t otherwise join might, so in my mind I was doing the opposite of gatekeeping! It was a normie-positive comment, if you will (although not without caveats).

    I was also using the term somewhat ironically although maybe this didn’t come through well. People have different connotations with words and I can’t expect everyone to share my connotations.

    What I think is important isn’t the exact wording (if I hadn’t written “normie” I would have used a different word to refer to people who wouldn’t otherwise join the fediverse) but to not use your fediverse instance as a way to build some sort of upside down social pyramid where you use your outsidernes as a status symbol against people who are well-adjusted irl. This happening or not happening isn’t contingent on a certain word being used or not, although arguably normie is a word that has strong enough negative associations to push people away. I don’t have those associations with that word so that doesn’t ring true for me, but as I said, not everyone has the same connocations.



  • The way I see it, you can still talk to your friends by making a threads account (or an account on an instance that federates with meta). If meta EEE’s the whole fediverse, you won’t have the ability to talk to unshowered strangers free of big corporations anymore.

    If we buy that the reason for meta joining ActivityPub is to EEE it, that means that meta sees the fediverse as a potential future competitor that they want to nip in the bud. I would rather leave that bud un-nipped and give it a chance to one day become an actual thorn in metas side, die out on its own terms or remain a niche community for freedom oriented tech-savvy nerds.



  • (typed this out yesterday before @ZickZack s excellent answer, but couldn’t post it at the time due to maintenance…)

    No, you’ve got it wrong. This is a fairly common missunderstanding which is perpetuated by a lot of coverage about the topic being sloppy.

    You could argue that there is a grain of truth to the idea of processing multiple possibilities at once, but it’s a bit more complicated than that and the way it’s usually presented leads to people building a bad intuition of how it works. If you do get in to the nitty-gritty of Shors algorithm it feels to me at least a bit like a weird hack that shouldn’t work at all or at least not be faster than the normal way to compute prime factors. It isn’t a general speedup, just in certain cases where you can exploit quantum mechanics in clever ways.

    Of the top of my head the SMBC comic about it is actually pretty good. This article makes basically the same points, but a bit more elaborated (note that it was written a while ago so the part about the current state of quantum computing is outdated). I noticed that Veritasum put out a YouTube video which I haven’t watched, but he is in my experience good at explaining physics and math so I think that there’s a good chance that it’ll hold up. I remember liking this Minute Physics video about Shor’s algorithm too, if you wanna get a better understanding of it.

    I should clarify that I’m not a quantum phycisist, I’ve just done a couple of internet deep dives on the topic but I can’t say that I fully understand quantum computing at all. I do think my understanding of it is better than the one in this article and others like it.



  • This is article is missleading about how quantum computing works.

    Superposition increases the computing power of a quantum computer exponentially. For example, two qubits can exist in four states simultaneously (00, 01, 10, 11), three qubits in eight states, and so on. This allows quantum computers to process a massive number of possibilities at once.

    Quantum computers aren’t faster because they “process” multiple “possibilities” at once. Quantum computers aren’t any faster than regular computers when it comes to general purpose computing. You can exploit some interesting properties about quantum computing to solve certain problems asymptotically faster, like with Shor’s algorithm.

    This means that the time to solve a problem as the size of the problem grows scales better. Using Shor’s algorithm, the time to factor a polynomial is proprtional to (log N)^2 log log N, where N is the size of the input data, instead of the fastest known non-quantum algorithm which takes time proportional to e^(1.9(log N)^(1/3)(log log N)^(2/3)). Note that the majority of problems that we would maybe like to solve using a computer don’t have any fancy quantum algorithms asociated with them and as such are no faster than a normal computer,

    Given a large enough problem that can be solved with a quantum algorithm, a quantum computer will eventually outperform a non-quantum computer. This does not mean that quantum computers can solve arbitrary problems quickly.